A Broker Dispatched to a Carrier Revoked Three Times. The Consumer Filed a Federal Complaint. It Took 4.5 Months to Be Referred. The Broker Responded with Photos of Play Money.

On October 29, 2026, FMCSA Chief Counsel Rebecca Pettit referred a Verified Shipper Complaint to the U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Hearings for adjudication (Docket No. FMCSA-2026-2971). The complaint, Griffin v. Menards Moving & Storage LLC, was filed on June 12, 2026 under 49 U.S.C. 14704(c)(1) by a retired transportation attorney on behalf of consumer Laura Griffin.

It took 4.5 months from filing to referral. FMCSA stated it 'has not investigated the allegations contained in the complaint and does not take a position on the validity of Ms. Griffin's allegations. FMCSA is not a party to this case.'

The complaint is the first 14704(c) shipper complaint against a household goods broker to be referred to the DOT Office of Hearings that Trunk has identified. The case is pending. This article documents the complaint's allegations as filed. No adjudication has occurred.

In early February 2026, Laura Griffin planned a move from Greenville, North Carolina to New Orleans, Louisiana. She contacted Menards Moving & Storage LLC (DOT 4072455, Greenacres, Florida) on or about February 16, 2026.

Menards provided a binding estimate of $4,895.11 for 813 cubic feet of household goods with an estimated value of $34,146. Griffin paid a $2,024 deposit, approximately 50% of the estimated cost. Menards advised that phone calls were recorded.

On February 24, Menards called to review the inventory list. Griffin reaffirmed the need to move out by February 27 or 28 to avoid an additional month's rent of $1,800.

At no time did Menards provide Griffin with a copy of its carrier list, as required by 49 CFR 371.109. Griffin did not receive a bill of lading three days prior to the move date, as required by 49 CFR 375.505(h).

On Saturday, February 28, Griffin waited for the truck with two paid helpers starting at 4 p.m. Menards' dispatch called after 6 p.m. to say the truck was 2 hours away. At 8:30 p.m. the driver called asking to postpone to the next day because they were tired and it would be dark. Griffin refused: she had to be out on the 28th or pay $1,800 additional rent.

The truck arrived after 9 p.m. on February 28 with no packing supplies, no moving helpers, and a driver who explained he was not aware this was a pack-and-move job. The driver also explained he did not work for Menards. He worked for a company called Handle With Care Moving, from Georgia.

This was the first time Griffin learned that Menards was not performing the move. At no time prior to the arrival of the truck did Menards inform Griffin of the identity of the carrier it had selected.

Handle With Care Moving and Transportation LLC (DOT 3190967) is a carrier based in Tucker, Georgia, operated by Eli Hasut (also known as Elad Hasut, Eli Davis, Allan Davis). HWC's authority has been revoked three times by FMCSA: 2021, 2022, and March 30, 2026. Hasut also operates under the names Howards Vanlines Inc (DOT 4391903, 206 complaints), JCS Moving and Storage LLC (DOT 4526003), and Logistic Moving Services LLC.

The driver advised that the move could not take place until Sunday, March 1, to secure packing supplies and helpers. Griffin's goods were packed and loaded on March 1. The driver did not provide a bill of lading, inventory list, or other documentation. Neither Griffin nor her designated representative were offered or signed any bill of lading or inventory list.

On the evening of March 2, HWC called Griffin to advise that approximately $5,000 would be due before delivery.

On March 4, HWC emailed a 'company invoice' for 1,400 cubic feet at $2.75 per cubic foot, totaling $7,264.50. The binding estimate had been for 813 cubic feet. The volume increased 72%.

The invoice comparison, as documented in the complaint:

Menards' estimate vs. HWC invoice: Cubic feet: 813 vs. 1,400 Cu ft charge ($2.75/cf): $2,235.75 vs. $3,850.00 Fuel surcharge: $335.36 vs. $577.50 Packing material: $500.00 vs. $813.00 Origin/destination fee: $3,024.00 vs. $3,024.00 Discount: $1,200.00 vs. $1,200.00 Total: $4,895.11 vs. $7,264.50 Deposit paid: $2,024.00 vs. $2,024.00 Balance due: $2,871.11 vs. $5,240.50

Katie Caruso from Menards called Griffin on March 4 to present two options: (1) pay $5,000 that day and Menards would schedule delivery, or (2) Menards and HWC would keep the goods in HWC's storage facility in Georgia for 30 days, after which they would be sold at auction.

Griffin spoke by phone with HWC's Omar Butt on multiple occasions in the following days. Butt said HWC's 'upper management, Eli,' would get back to discuss the account. Eli was not available for about a week. Griffin continued to call and text daily with both HWC and Menards until delivery.

Griffin paid an additional $2,000 to HWC to secure delivery. On March 14, a white 26-foot box truck arrived at her New Orleans residence. The HWC driver presented a document for signature acknowledging receipt (pages 1-2 of the bill of lading). The driver kept the signed copy, did not provide a copy to Griffin, and did not show or provide an inventory list.

Menards and HWC advised Griffin that the truck would not be unloaded until the remaining balance of $2,005 was paid. Payment was made during unloading.

As unloading progressed, Griffin observed that the delivered inventory was damaged and many precious possessions were missing. She texted Menards during unloading.

After delivery, Griffin and her husband posted negative comments on the Facebook 'Moving Fraud Awareness' group page. Menards' owner, Joseph Menard, objected to the posts, demanded they be removed as a precondition to Menards helping resolve claims against the carrier, and threatened to sue for defamation.

Griffin filed a property loss claim with HWC's designated claims adjuster, CSI Moving Claims. On April 29, 2026, CSI responded on behalf of HWC with an offer of $92.00, conditioned on a waiver of claims, an NDA, and a waiver of public interest speech about the move. Griffin did not accept.

Griffin subsequently filed a property loss claim with HWC's cargo insurance carrier, Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance ('PMA'). PMA assigned the claim to Larry Press, Inc. (larrypressclaims.com) for investigation. Griffin submitted a detailed spreadsheet documenting property loss and damage of $38,942 at full replacement value. Griffin has since been advised that HWC's policy excludes theft coverage and is contingent on HWC's cooperation with the insurance carrier, which HWC has not provided.

The complaint includes a section titled 'About HWC and Carrier Vetting Information Available to Menards.' It documents the public information that was available to Menards at the time it selected Handle With Care as the carrier for Griffin's move:

HWC's FMCSA authority had been revoked three times (2021, 2022, March 30, 2026). HWC's operator, Eli Hasut, is the same individual operating Howards Vanlines Inc (DOT 4391903), which accumulated 206 complaints from a single truck. The complaint alleges Menards failed to vet HWC, failed to disclose its selection of HWC, and failed to provide Griffin with the carrier list required by 49 CFR 371.109.

On April 8, 2026, Griffin emailed Menards requesting copies of the carrier list and broker-carrier agreement, as required by 49 CFR 371.109 and 371.115. Menards has refused to provide these documents. On May 8, Griffin requested copies of the HWC tariff used for the binding estimate and documents relating to Menards' vetting of HWC prior to selection. This documentation has not been provided.

The complaint alleges that Menards' binding estimate included a 'waiver' of physical survey that was not explained, and that Menards did not inform Griffin of the likelihood of higher charges on moving day without a survey, nor of Menards' experience and knowledge of HWC's practice of moving-day price increases.

The complaint alleges violations of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IV, Part B, and regulations under 49 CFR Parts 365, 371, 375, and 1310, including:

Failure to provide the carrier list required by 49 CFR 371.109. Failure to have a written agreement with HWC before providing an estimate, as required by 49 CFR 371.115. Failure to provide a bill of lading three days before the move, as required by 49 CFR 375.505(h). Failure to disclose the identity of the selected carrier before the truck arrived. Failure to provide 'fit, willing and able' HHG brokerage service as required by 49 U.S.C. 13904. Use of a pre-printed survey waiver without explanation of its function or consequences. Failure to disclose the method by which cubic feet were calculated. Inclusion of a $3,024 'origin/destination fee' without disclosure that this charge is not universally standard and may constitute an overcharge.

Total claimed damages: $44,966.50, comprising moving charges, property damage, and property loss.

Joseph Henry Menard Jr., owner of Menards Moving & Storage LLC (6801 Lake Worth Road, Suite 253, Greenacres, Florida 33467), filed a 31-page response (Attachment C to the referral). The response includes photographs of play money allegedly received as payment and screenshots of allegedly abusive text messages.

The response does not explicitly attribute the play money or abusive texts to the complainant but presents them in the context of the case. According to correspondence reviewed by Trunk, the source of the play money story was Eli Hasut, the operator of Handle With Care, as communicated to Joseph Menard. The broker's response to a federal complaint thus relies on evidence sourced from the chameleon carrier operator whose authority has been revoked three times.

A journalist reviewing the filing observed that the photograph of the play money contains file metadata indicating it was taken on September 14, 2026, six months after the March 2026 move. The same journalist noted that paperwork visible on the desk in the photograph displays the URL gorilla.hellomoving.com, a lead generation platform subdomain. The hellomoving.com platform has been separately documented in connection with America First Moving Services (DOT 3709259), a Florida broker whose owner is under FL AG investigation for FDUTPA violations.

The 14704(c)(1) complaint mechanism allows a consumer damaged by a broker or carrier's violation of federal HHG transportation regulations to elect administrative adjudication through the Secretary of Transportation rather than filing a civil lawsuit. The complaint is filed with the Secretary and referred to FMCSA, which forwards it to the DOT Office of Hearings.

The statute of limitations for a 14704(c) action is four years. Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. Mayflower Transit, LLC, 615 F.3d 790, 792-93 (7th Cir. 2010).

The complaint's footnotes cite case law establishing that 14704(a)(2) creates a private cause of action for regulatory violations (Fulfillment Services v. United Parcel Service, 528 F.3d 614 (9th Cir. 2008)), that 'damages' under 14704(a)(2) include those incurred from regulatory violations (Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. New Prime, Inc., 192 F.3d 778 (8th Cir. 1999)), and that broker liability under negligent carrier selection is addressed in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, 2026 WL 1336188 (May 14, 2026).

The complaint also notes that Carmack Amendment property loss claim limitations apply only to carrier liability and do not limit non-Carmack shipper actions against brokers. Louis M. Marson Jr., Inc. v. Alliance Shippers, 438 F. Supp. 3d 326 (ED Pa. 2020).

1. The 14704(c) administrative complaint mechanism exists but is rarely used. This appears to be the first such complaint against an HHG broker to reach the DOT Office of Hearings. The 4.5-month processing time from filing to referral suggests the mechanism is not staffed for volume.

2. The complaint documents the complete broker-to-chameleon carrier dispatch chain from the consumer's perspective: no carrier disclosure, no carrier list provided, no bill of lading, no inventory, volume inflation on moving day, auction threats, damaged and stolen goods, a $92 claims offer conditioned on an NDA, and insurance that excludes theft and requires carrier cooperation the carrier won't provide.

3. Menards dispatched to Handle With Care, a carrier whose authority had been revoked three times, without disclosure. The complaint's carrier vetting section documents the public information that was available to Menards. This is a negligent carrier selection claim under the Montgomery framework.

4. The broker's response includes photographs with metadata dating them six months after the events in question, and contains paperwork linking Menards to a lead generation platform separately connected to another broker under state AG investigation.

5. The case demonstrates the enforcement gap from the consumer's side: after paying $44,966 in moving charges and property losses, the consumer's options are (a) an administrative complaint that takes months to be referred and has no guaranteed timeline for resolution, or (b) a civil lawsuit that requires an attorney and venue jurisdiction.

This case is pending before the DOT Office of Hearings. This article will be updated when a decision is issued.