At least 45 Mexican commercial truck drivers are now represented by attorneys pursuing allegations that they were recruited in Mexico to haul freight in the United States through promises of legal work authorization and were later subjected to coercive labor practices.
Twenty-nine of those drivers are currently plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit against California-based Omega Compliance Solutions LLC, Henry G. Gamino, Rick Gamino and several U.S. trucking and transportation companies.
The case, Doe v. Omega Compliance Solutions LLC et al., was originally filed in December in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. An amended complaint filed Jan. 15 added South Star Logistics, Trius Trucking, New Legend, B&B Transport, A&I Transport, Diesel Direct and Diesel Direct West as defendants.
The case remains pending, and none of the allegations has been adjudicated.
Karla Madrazo Villarreal, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, told FreightWaves that her firm now represents at least 45 Mexican commercial drivers who describe what she called “substantially similar experiences” connected to the alleged recruitment and staffing arrangement.
The original lawsuit was brought by 22 drivers, with seven additional plaintiffs added in the amended complaint.
“Additional drivers have come forward since the First Amended Complaint was filed,” Madrazo Villarreal said in a written response to FreightWaves. “Our firm currently represents at least 45 Mexican commercial drivers who report substantially similar experiences arising from the alleged recruitment and staffing arrangement.”
The 29 current plaintiffs are part of that larger group. Madrazo Villarreal said the investigation remains ongoing and that the number of potentially affected drivers could be higher. Her firm expects to ask the court to add additional plaintiffs and potentially other defendants if the investigation produces enough evidence.
Drivers allege promises of visas and legal U.S. employment
According to the amended complaint, Omega and recruiters acting on its behalf targeted professional commercial drivers in Mexico from approximately 2022 through 2025.
The plaintiffs allege that recruiters promised lawful U.S. work authorization, employment-based visas and, in some cases, a path to permanent residency.
Recruitment communications allegedly took place through WhatsApp messages and voice recordings, as well as during meetings in Baja California and San Diego County and through written materials.
The complaint further alleges that drivers were given purported immigration “case numbers” and misleading information concerning Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers, leading them to believe that legitimate immigration sponsorship was underway.
According to the plaintiffs, drivers were required to pay “activation” and “visa processing” fees before being placed with U.S. carriers.
Madrazo Villarreal said those alleged immigration promises were a central part of the recruitment process.
According to the complaint, “the drivers were told that they would be able to work lawfully in the United States and that Omega would arrange or facilitate the necessary immigration process,” she told FreightWaves.
The alleged representations included employment-based immigration processing, work permits and, in certain cases, permanent residency. Plaintiffs contend that their resulting economic and immigration dependence was then used as leverage to keep them working.
One allegation in the amended complaint provides a particularly detailed example.
In early 2023, Henry Gamino allegedly sent WhatsApp voice messages to one driver claiming that Omega had secured an EB-3 immigration “case number” for him. The driver was allegedly told that he could obtain a work permit and residency after paying a $3,000 “activation” fee.
The complaint alleges that the driver was also warned that refusing freight loads or leaving the program would mean he would “lose everything” and could be reported to immigration authorities.
The driver allegedly paid the fee, surrendered his passport and began hauling freight for one of the carrier defendants.
Those allegations have not been proven in court.
Passports, deductions and threats alleged
The plaintiffs allege that they later faced deductions described as payments for legal advice, taxes, insurance, truck maintenance, penalties and fuel.
The complaint also alleges that some drivers surrendered passports and I-94 immigration documents that were then retained.
According to the plaintiffs, drivers who questioned the immigration process, requested their documents or tried to leave the arrangement allegedly faced threats involving deportation, financial penalties and blacklisting.
The plaintiffs contend that the overall arrangement amounted to forced labor and trafficking under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act.
They also assert claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as California labor laws and other state statutes.
The complaint alleges that drivers hauled freight across multiple states and claims that the defendants failed to properly compensate some drivers for all hours worked, imposed unlawful deductions and misclassified some workers as independent contractors.
It further alleges that U.S. Customs and Border Protection canceled or revoked visas and, in some cases, FAST cards belonging to plaintiffs during inspections at U.S. ports of entry.
The complaint links those consequences to the alleged recruitment and dispatch operation. That claimed connection remains an allegation by the plaintiffs and is not a finding by CBP or the court.
Motor carriers dispute allegations
Madrazo Villarreal stressed that the plaintiffs are not alleging that every trucking company involved carried out every act described in the complaint.
Instead, the plaintiffs argue that the defendants were part of what they describe as a “divided but coordinated arrangement,” with different parties allegedly handling recruitment, immigration representations, onboarding, payroll, dispatch, supervision and operational control.
“This case is not based on the proposition that every carrier performed every act,” Madrazo Villarreal said. “The central questions are what each defendant did, what each knew or should have known, and whether each knowingly benefited from the drivers’ labor.”
She said the plaintiffs are pointing to carrier-specific evidence and alleged warning signs that include offer letters, onboarding communications, dispatch and load assignments, ELD integration, payroll or settlement records, mileage and fuel records, training, and communications concerning visas, ITINs or purported work authorization.
The carriers dispute liability.
At least some defendants have formally challenged the allegations. Trius Trucking and B&B Transport filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, while Diesel Direct and Diesel Direct West also filed dismissal motions.
According to the federal docket, the court took those dismissal motions under submission earlier this year.
A&I Transport, in its answer, acknowledged using drivers supplied by Omega but denied knowingly receiving labor from plaintiffs who lacked lawful U.S. work authorization.
The carrier also denied allegations that its relationship with Omega constituted an enterprise designed to obtain controlled labor through fraud, coercion and wage suppression.
South Star turns to Omega in crossclaim
South Star Logistics has taken a different approach in the litigation.
While denying that it engaged in trafficking, forced labor, immigration fraud, wage theft or other unlawful conduct, South Star filed a crossclaim against Omega, Henry Gamino and Rick Gamino on Feb. 11.
South Star said it had a written agreement with Omega covering recruitment, compliance and workforce services for drivers referred to the carrier.
Under that agreement, according to South Star’s crossclaim, Omega was responsible for recruiting, screening, interviewing, hiring and assigning employees.
The company was also allegedly responsible for supplying background checks and drug-test results, providing qualified personnel and complying with federal and state employment laws, including the Immigration Reform and Control Act.
South Star further alleges that Omega was responsible for paying workers’ wages, withholding and transmitting payroll taxes, and providing unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation.
The carrier said it “reasonably relied” on Omega’s contractual promises and compliance representations.
South Star argues that, if it is ultimately found liable to the drivers, its responsibility would be secondary or derivative. The carrier contends that conduct by Omega and the Gaminos would instead constitute the primary cause of the injuries alleged by the plaintiffs.
South Star is seeking contractual and equitable indemnification, contribution, attorneys’ fees and defense costs.
Those assertions against Omega and the Gaminos are themselves allegations contained in a crossclaim and have not been adjudicated.
FreightWaves contacted attorneys representing South Star for additional information about the company’s relationship with Omega, what South Star had been told regarding the drivers’ authorization to work in the U.S. and the reasons behind the crossclaim. They had not responded as of publication.
Omega has not responded to FreightWaves
FreightWaves also contacted Omega Compliance Solutions and Henry Gamino seeking responses to the drivers’ allegations and questions about Omega’s recruitment and immigration-related services.
No response had been received as of publication.
Omega’s website describes the company as a provider of regulatory compliance services for businesses, including audits, training and policy development.
The plaintiffs have also faced difficulties serving their claims on Omega and the Gaminos.
Madrazo Villarreal said attempts had been made at business and residential addresses, and the plaintiffs had previously asked the court to authorize alternative service.
The court denied an earlier request for alternative and electronic service in February.
South Star separately reported that it had served Omega and the Gaminos with its crossclaim.
Madrazo Villarreal emphasized that service of South Star’s crossclaim is legally distinct from service of the drivers’ amended complaint, and said the plaintiffs’ efforts to serve the complaint remain ongoing.
“These were professional commercial drivers recruited in Mexico with alleged promises of lawful employment and a better future,” Madrazo Villarreal said. “At least 45 drivers now represented by our firm report substantially similar experiences.”
The federal docket identifies the case as 3:25-cv-03613-JES-JLB.
Why it matters
The lawsuit, Doe v. Omega Compliance Solutions LLC et al., raises questions about how U.S. trucking fleets vet third-party staffing companies involved in recruiting commercial drivers across the Mexican border.
