The JDM Expedite lawsuit, filed as King v. JDM Expedite Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in November 2022, is a federal class action brought by eight owner-operator truck drivers who say the Lyons, Illinois carrier systematically underpaid them by lying about how much freight brokers were actually paying for their loads. The case is still pending as of December 2025, with the central claims cleared to proceed after an August 2024 ruling.
What the Drivers Say JDM Did
The drivers leased trucks through JDM under what the company called a “Rent to Run Agreement” and hauled freight under JDM’s operating authority. Their pay was a percentage of the gross revenue JDM received on each load, with the exact percentage varying by driver.1vLex. King v. JDM Expedite Inc.
According to the complaint, JDM reported inflated-looking numbers that were actually lower than what customers paid, then calculated the drivers’ cut against the fabricated figure. The plaintiffs point to a January 26, 2022 shipment where JDM told driver James White the load had generated $3,330 in gross revenue. When White called the freight broker directly, the broker confirmed the customer had paid $3,800 for that same load.1vLex. King v. JDM Expedite Inc.
The drivers say the scheme worked because JDM refused to hand over the paperwork that would have let them check the math. Federal regulations require a carrier paying owner-operators on a percentage basis to provide a copy of the rated freight bill or equivalent documentation at or before settlement.2eCFR. 49 CFR Part 376 – Lease and Interchange of Vehicles Instead, according to the complaint, JDM communicated load prices by phone, text, or email. In October 2021, JDM reportedly told one plaintiff that not providing rate confirmation sheets was official company policy.1vLex. King v. JDM Expedite Inc.
The Legal Claims
The lawsuit brings three main claims against JDM Expedite, its president Aleksandar Kragovic, and a related company called Tempo Freight Systems LLC:
- Breach of contract, for underreporting revenue and underpaying drivers in violation of the lease agreements.
- Violations of the federal Truth in Leasing Act, 49 U.S.C. § 14704(a)(2) and 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(g), for refusing to provide rated freight bills at settlement.1vLex. King v. JDM Expedite Inc.
- Violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, on the theory that JDM exercised enough control over the drivers that they should be treated as employees rather than independent contractors.3Studicata. King v. JDM Expedite Inc. Summary
The plaintiffs also seek to hold Kragovic personally liable for aiding and abetting the Truth in Leasing violations and for approving the wage violations under Illinois law.
The named plaintiffs are Kenny King (doing business as Pugilist Logistics), John Tinsley (doing business as JS Transportation), Kenneth Gunter (doing business as Volunteer Transport), James White, Hodari Worldwide Logistics, Inc., Diamond Lane LLC, Abdal Hakim Ali, and Brandon Nelson. JDM required its drivers to contract under a corporate or business name rather than as individuals.1vLex. King v. JDM Expedite Inc.
The Tempo Freight Angle
After the lawsuit was filed, the plaintiffs say JDM tried to make itself judgment-proof. In early 2023, according to the complaint, JDM transferred most of its assets, including trucks and operational equipment, to Tempo Freight Systems LLC, another company led by Kragovic. The plaintiffs argue Tempo Freight is essentially the same business under a new name and should be liable as a corporate successor under a “mere continuation” theory.
Federal registration records show both companies list the same address, 8100 47th Street in Lyons, Illinois. Tempo Freight received its FMCSA operating authority in April 2021.4FMCSA. Tempo Freight Systems LLC SAFER Snapshot
What the Court Has Decided
On August 16, 2024, Judge Joan B. Gottschall ruled on the defendants’ motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. She dismissed some claims but let the core of the case move forward.1vLex. King v. JDM Expedite Inc.
Three pieces of the ruling matter most. First, the court found that JDM exercised enough control over its owner-operators that they could potentially qualify as employees under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, despite contracts labeling them independent contractors.3Studicata. King v. JDM Expedite Inc. Summary Second, the court allowed the Truth in Leasing claims against Kragovic personally to proceed, though it dismissed the IWPCA claims against him individually because the plaintiffs had not offered enough factual detail about his direct involvement beyond his corporate title. Third, the court held that Tempo Freight could be sued as a corporate successor, keeping it in the case.
Where the Case Stands
As of the most recent docket activity in December 2025, the lawsuit remains pending. The court has not certified a class, and there is no settlement or trial date on record.5PACER Monitor. King et al v. JDM Expedite Inc.
A Wider Pattern of Driver Complaints
The allegations in the lawsuit line up with complaints drivers have posted publicly. On Indeed, JDM Expedite holds an overall rating of 2.2 out of 5 stars across 23 reviews. One reviewer said $5,000 in gross pay was reduced to a $175 net check after company deductions. Another said JDM owed them $3,000 in unpaid wages. Several described the lease-purchase arrangement as misleading, with one writing, “This is not a lease purchase. Just a rental company.”6Indeed. JDM Expedite Inc. Reviews
Posts on The Truckers Report describe similar issues. Drivers alleged JDM deducted $250 per week as a security deposit on the company’s truck and then refused to return it after the truck was returned. Contributors also described an absence of load confirmations, which is the same documentation gap at the heart of the federal lawsuit.7The Truckers Report. JDM Expedite Forum Thread