Hernandez v. Brink’s Inc., 2009 WL 113406, at *6 (S.D.Fla. Jan. 15, 2009)). Courts that have considered the issue of a “mixed fleet” of both commercial and noncommercial vehicles are divided on the proper approach, but the prevailing view appears to be that when mixed activities occur, the MCA favors coverage of the employee during the course of employment, so long as the time an employee spends operating commercial motor vehicles is more than de minimus. Avery v. Chariots For Hire, 748 F.Supp.2d 492, 500 (D.Md.2010) (citing Hernandez v. Brink’s, Inc., 2009 WL 113406, at *6 (S.D.Fla. Jan. 15, 2009) (“[W]hen mixed activities occur, the Motor Carrier Act favors coverage of the employee during the course of employment.”)); Dalton v. Sabo, Inc., 2010 WL 1325613, at *4 (D.Or. Apr. 1, 2010) (<HOLDING>); cf., Tews v. Renzenberger, 592 F.Supp.2d 1331
holding that more than notice to a defendant is required holding that a permanent lifting restriction of no more than twentyfive pounds on a continuous basis is not substantially limiting holding that motor carrier exemption applied to plaintiffs that performed maintenance on a fleet that consisted of vehicles weighing both more and less than 10000 pounds holding that the unit of prosecution under  666a1a is  5000 or more from whatever source in any one year period in which the government or agency at issue receives more than 10000 in federal aid holding that section 1101a43d requires that the money laundering involve more than 10000 not that 10000 or more was tainted