( Logo courtesy C.H. Robinson )

A lawsuit by multiple U.S. and foreign growers charges C.H. Robinson/Robinson Fresh with “illegal and deceptive” business practices.

The Jan. 16 complaint claims that Eden Prairie, Minn.-based C.H. Robinson/ Robinson Fresh:

  • Represented fees from growers as their own donations to breast cancer organizations; 
  • Structured the transportation of consigned produce in a way — termed freight topping — that benefited C.H. Robinson rather than growers;
  • Contracted for an additional reduction of 2% of freight charges and did not pass the savings on to plaintiffs;
  • Received rebates from seed suppliers and didn’t pass them on to growers; and
  • Received rebates from CHEP USA but did not pass them on to growers.

The plaintiff’s lawsuit was submitted by Craig Stokes, of Stokes Law Office, San Antonio.

Plaintiffs are: 

  • David Moore, doing business as Moore Family Farms;
  • Terry Lusk, Jason Lusk and Justin Lusk, doing business as JTJ Farms;
  • Kevin Rentz, Amanda Calhoun Rentz, Dennis Bruce Rentz and Karla Jo Rentz, doing business as Rentz Family Farms; 
  • Kevin Coggins, doing business as Mek Farms; 
  • Bowles Farming Co. Inc.;
  • Agropecuaria Los Americanos S.C. de R.L. de C.V.; 
  • Phil Sandifer & Sons Farms LLC;
  •  JMB Farm LLC;
  • Powe Farms Management LLC
  • CA Comercial S.A.C.; 
  • Global Fresh S.A.C.; and 
  • Pepas Tropicales Del Peru S.A.C;

C.H. Robinson has until early March to respond to the complaint in court, but the company issued a statement to The Packer Feb. 10 stating the “complaint was designed to capture media attention, and it contains an enormous amount of self-serving falsehoods as well as blatant mischaracterizations and fabrications about our company, teams and the actual agreements signed by the growers themselves.”

C.H. Robinson plans to oppose the plaintiffs’ plan to pursue class-action status of the lawsuit.

“We deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing and look forward to vigorously defending our actions, as well as filing legitimate counterclaims against the growers.”

In the company’s statement, C.H. Robinson said it loaned several of the growers listed in the complaint money to finance their businesses. 

“Now that the money is due to be repaid, these growers are using this complaint to avoid paying their debts. C.H. Robinson will assert its right to collect the significant amounts it is owed by the growers,” according to the statement.

Stokes said plaintiffs are seeking class action status from the court, and that claims of freight topping could apply to “hundreds if not thousands of growers.” Stokes said he was aware of only one grower plaintiff who owes money to C.H. Robinson.

Stokes alleges that C.H. Robinson inflated freight costs and included that number in the delivered cost to the buyer.

“So you take the delivered cost, minus the freight inflated by (X percent), and then that number was reported to the grower as the f.o.b. price,” he said.

While contracts with growers clearly spelled out the sales commission charged by C.H. Robinson, Stokes said the contracts made no mention of C.H. Robinson making money on freight.

“If you are going to charge for something, you put it in the contract and get permission,” Stokes said. “Tell the grower how much you’re going to mark up the truckers’ invoices and get the growers’ permission.”

C.H. Robinson said in its statement that the company did not violate any expressed or implied duties to the growers.

“We are proud of the work we do with our teams, growers, and customers throughout the world, and we look forward to putting this entirely meritless complaint behind us,” said Michael Castagnetto, President of Robinson Fresh, a division of C.H. Robinson.

Submitted by Produce Guy on Wed, 02/12/2020 - 07:05

About time growers band together to speak up against and fight abusive trading practices. Hope this is the beginning of positive change!

Submitted by Scout on Thu, 02/27/2020 - 16:34

Allowing unscrupulous practices by brokers and shippers is the same as allowing a grower to spray whatever chemical he wants to spray, even if it is not labeled for the crop. In the end somebody pays for the practice. It's not a matter of if, but when, you make a deal with a broker that you will sooner or later get a call that your load was rejected for some unknown reason leaving you financially at burden. It happens all the time. All those participating in these type practices should be held accountable.