A group of carriers has accused C.H. Robinson (NASDAQ: CHRW) and Total Quality Logistics (TQL) of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and the case is in litigation that will probably take a long time to get to the jury stage. A proposed case schedule filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas proposes jury selection for April 3, 2028, before Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

The schedule originated in a series of legal filings made by the parties involved in the dispute last week. The proposed dates have not yet been finalized, but a scheduling conference is scheduled for Nov. 23.

There are several important procedural stages expected to be completed by the parties before the potential trial. Discovery could drag on into late 2027, and mediation is tentatively set to conclude by late January 2028. Key documents, including proposed jury instructions, are due March 13, 2028. A pre-trial conference is scheduled for March 20 before the scheduled date to pick a jury.

But the trial itself isn't the immediate focus. TQL wants the lawsuit dismissed, saying it was filed in the wrong court.

TQL contests court selection

The lawsuit, known as Stevens Trucking et al. v. C.H. Robinson et al., includes six carriers, including Stevens Trucking, Western Flier Express, D&M Carriers d/b/a Freymiller Trucking, Christenson Transportation, E.O.S. Inc. and IWX Motor Freight.

The carriers have just recently filed their response to TQL’s motion to dismiss based on the legal doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens (FNC). The brokerage company claims that the case does not belong in federal court in Texas because most of the plaintiffs had signed carrier-service agreements that required disputes to be litigated in state court in Clermont, Ohio, near TQL’s Cincinnati-area headquarters.

TQL cited agreements to which all but one of the plaintiffs, IWX Motor Freight, was a signatory.

C.H. Robinson, however, has not filed any documents in proceedings to date. A company spokesperson also clarified that TQL’s Forum Non Conveniens filing does not include the brokerage.

In its response the carriers contest the scope of the contractual provisions relied upon by TQL. They argue that these clauses should not be interpreted so broadly that they cover any and all disputes between the parties, including matters completely unrelated to the underlying service agreements.

They say that the federal court in Texas is the right place to resolve the allegations against the two broker-dealers.

Dispute centers on allegations of forced labor

The original complaint alleges that TQL and C.H. Robinson used practices the plaintiffs call forced labor. The lawsuit does not offer a formal definition of the term, but it says brokers intentionally hired foreign workers because they were easier to exploit, were subject to less oversight and were less likely to comprehend the conditions they faced.

The carriers allege these conditions allowed the companies to keep foreign workers in what they call peonage and forced labor.

In addition to their response to the challenge to jurisdiction by TQL, the plaintiffs filed an omnibus filing last week. The document compiles many of the allegations already made in their original complaint, filed Sept. 23.

At the heart of their argument is the fact that the two largest third-party logistics providers (3PLs) wielded their market power to force carriers to lower their rates. The practices included the use of what the plaintiffs call illegal carriers and forced labor, they say.

The lawsuit also identifies several agreements, as well as anticipated business arrangements, that the carriers claim they lost to the two brokers as a result of their commercial practices.

The omnibus filing further alleges that TQL's conduct prevented the plaintiffs from participating meaningfully in bidding processes involving customers and shippers. Similar accusations are directed at C.H. Robinson.

The alleged driver shortage narrative questioned

The consolidated filing also revisits one of the more prominent claims in the original lawsuit: the allegation that TQL and C.H. Robinson helped promote the narrative of a truck driver shortage.

According to the carriers, the two companies benefited from a long-standing marketing strategy built around creating demand and then positioning themselves to meet it.

The plaintiffs argue that the supposed driver shortage was used to justify business practices that put downward pressure on carrier compensation, rather than addressing drivers' demands for better pay.

American Trucking Associations drawn into the allegations

The carriers' most recent filing also refers to the American Trucking Associations (ATA), though the organization is not listed as a defendant.

Plaintiffs contest that an actual driver shortage existed and allege that defendants were not willing to pay available drivers a living wage. They also say the shortage story was driven by marketing campaigns and industry organizations such as the ATA.

Specifically, the complaint accuses C.H. Robinson of supporting increased immigration as a way to solve the alleged labor shortage. The ATA also claims it lobbied the U.S. Department of Transportation in 2021 to ease licensing and immigration rules.

The allegations come as Chris Spears is stepping down as head of the ATA, raising questions about where the organization will go from here on the driver shortage.

The ATA has strongly denied the allegations against it. The ATA is not a party to the lawsuit and neither C.H. Robinson nor TQL are members of the ATA, said Henry Hanscom, the association’s chief advocacy and public affairs officer, in response to questions from FreightWaves.

He also described the allegations on the association as untrue.

Long legal fight looming

The latest filings, while illuminating the arguments being made by both sides, also show how far off a possible jury trial the litigation remains under the proposed schedule. The next major development will probably be a court ruling on TQL’s motion to either dismiss the case or transfer it to Ohio.

The trucking and brokerage industries will need to wait until that issue is resolved and the remaining procedural steps are completed before they can assess the broader legal and commercial implications of the case.