Moore v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:20-cv-00252
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 18
In Moore v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Chief Judge Schiltz granted summary judgment in favor of logistics company C.H. Robinson on most claims brought by produce farmers who alleged the company failed to market their crops, while allowing one farmer's claim about whether C.H. Robinson waived quality standards to proceed to trial, and entered default judgment against two Peruvian companies that stopped participating in the lawsuit and owed C.H. Robinson over $3 million in unpaid commissions and advances.
Produce farmers who contract with large logistics or sales-agent companies to market and sell their crops on consignment; companies subject to the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA); businesses that stop participating in litigation (risking default judgment); corporate litigants who must be represented by licensed counsel in federal court; and parties relying on statistical disparity alone — without evidence of specific conduct — to prove breach of contract or bad faith.
What happened
In Moore v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., a group of produce farmers — Moore Family Farms, Rentz Family Farms, Phil Sandifer & Sons Farms, Powe Farms, Townsend Brothers Ag Enterprises, Global Fresh, S.A.C., and CE Comercial, S.A.C. — sued logistics giant C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. ('CHR'), claiming CHR repeatedly chose to sell other farmers' produce instead of theirs, leaving their crops to rot. Between 2017 and 2019, each farmer signed an exclusive contract appointing CHR as their sales agent, and CHR agreed to 'endeavor' to market and sell their produce on a commission basis. The farmers alleged violations of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (a federal law governing the handling and sale of fresh produce), breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty (the legal duty of an agent to act loyally on behalf of the person they represent), and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (a legal obligation read into every contract requiring honest conduct).
The core problem with most of the farmers' claims, the court found, was a near-total lack of evidence about what CHR actually did or failed to do in marketing their produce. The farmers' only evidence was that CHR sold significantly more of other farmers' produce than theirs — but they offered nothing to explain why. Critically, despite years of discovery (the pretrial process of gathering evidence) and repeated disputes requiring a court-appointed special master to resolve, the farmers apparently never even took a deposition (sworn testimony) from a single CHR employee to ask why the sales were lopsided. The court found this statistical disparity alone could not support a finding of bad faith, dishonesty, or breach of contract, because many innocent reasons could explain the difference. Moore Family Farms' separate claim that CHR failed to give timely notice of produce rejections was also dismissed because Moore could not show it was actually harmed by the late notice — its claimed damages were too speculative. However, Moore's other claim — that CHR's own on-farm representative directed Moore to pack and ship produce that later got rejected, effectively waiving CHR's right to reject it — survived, because a reasonable jury could find CHR shifted the risk of rejection onto itself. Powe Farms' claims also mostly survived; the court refused to grant summary judgment just because Powe's company witness was unprepared at a deposition, finding that remedy far too severe.
Chief Judge Schiltz granted CHR's motion for summary judgment in part, dismissing with prejudice (meaning permanently, with no ability to refile) all claims brought by Townsend Brothers, Rentz Family Farms, and Phil Sandifer & Sons Farms, as well as Moore Family Farms' notice claim and certain withdrawn damages requests. Moore's claim about CHR waiving quality standards and most of Powe Farms' claims were allowed to continue. Separately, Chief Judge Schiltz granted CHR's motion for default judgment against Global Fresh and CE Comercial — two Peruvian companies that had stopped participating in the case since 2021 and, as corporations, are legally required to have a licensed attorney represent them in federal court. The court entered money judgments against them: Global Fresh alone owes CHR $198,242.44 (plus interest) for the 2017 agreement; Global Fresh and CE Comercial together owe $156,153.28 (plus interest) for the 2018 agreement and $2,661,027.30 (plus interest) for the 2019 agreement, which included a $1,000,000 advance that was never repaid.
The detailed version
- Moore v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., No. 20-CV-0252 (PJS/ECW)
- Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz
- August 21, 2025
Background and Parties Plaintiffs — collectively referred to as 'Growers' — are Moore Family Farms, Rentz Family Farms, Phil Sandifer & Sons Farms LLC, Powe Farms Management LLC, Townsend Brothers Ag Enterprises LLC, Global Fresh S.A.C., and CE Comercial S.A.C. Between 2017 and 2019, each Grower entered materially similar exclusive agency contracts with defendant C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. and related entities ('CHR'), a global logistics company. Under these contracts, CHR acted as the Growers' exclusive sales agent on a consignment basis — it did not buy the produce outright but agreed to 'endeavor' to market it to buyers and remit proceeds minus a commission. Growers retained title and quality risk until customer acceptance. CHR arranged shipping and negotiated prices.
Growers sued CHR asserting: (1) violations of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act ('PACA'), 7 U.S.C. § 499b(4), which prohibits commission merchants from failing without reasonable cause to perform duties arising from agricultural commodity transactions; (2) breach of contract; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; and (4) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The central allegation was that CHR systematically favored other farmers' produce over Growers' produce, leaving Growers' crops unsold.
Motions Before the Court CHR moved for summary judgment against Townsend, Rentz, Sandifer, Moore, and Powe (ECF No. 229) and for default judgment against Global Fresh and CE Comercial (ECF No. 225).
Summary Judgment Standard The court applied the standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a): summary judgment is warranted when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court cited Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986), and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986).
Townsend, Rentz, and Sandifer Claims — DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE The court found that despite years of litigation, extensive discovery, and the appointment of a special master to manage discovery disputes, these three plaintiffs offered essentially no evidence about what CHR actually did or failed to do to market their produce. Their only evidence was that CHR sold disproportionately more of other farmers' produce. The court held this statistical disparity, without more, cannot establish why the disparity occurred, and therefore cannot support a finding that CHR failed to 'endeavor' to market Growers' produce. Notably, the court pointed out that Growers apparently never deposed a single CHR representative. This evidentiary vacuum was fatal to all four legal theories: (a) the PACA claim for failure to perform express duties was coextensive with the breach-of-contract claim and failed for the same reasons; (b) the PACA implied-duty claim (a duty of honest dealing recognized in some cases, e.g., Coosemans Specialties, Inc. v. Dep't of Agric., 482 F.3d 560 (D.C. Cir. 2007)) required evidence of dishonesty or bad faith — none existed; (c) the implied covenant claim under Minnesota law required evidence that CHR 'unjustifiably hindered' performance or acted with an 'ulterior motive' (In re Hennepin Cnty. 1986 Recycling Bond Litig., 540 N.W.2d 494 (Minn. 1995); Cent. Specialties, Inc. v. Minn. Dep't of Transp., 5 N.W.3d 409 (Minn. Ct. App. 2024)); and (d) the fiduciary duty of loyalty claim (assuming such a duty existed) required evidence of self-dealing or secret profit (Dahl v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., 545 N.W.2d 918 (Minn. 1996)). The court found that disproportionate sales are consistent with both good faith and bad faith conduct, and that Growers' unsworn assertions in briefs do not constitute evidence. All claims by Townsend, Rentz, and Sandifer were dismissed with prejudice.
Moore's Claims — Mixed Result
Notice Claim — DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: The contract required CHR to notify Moore within one business day of any produce rejection. Moore claimed CHR failed to do so and sought the full value of rejected produce as damages. The court held that the proper measure of damages for a failure-to-notify breach is the harm that 'naturally and necessarily resulted' from the lack of notice — not from the underlying rejection itself (Logan v. Norwest Bank Minn., N.A., 603 N.W.2d 659 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999)). Moore offered no evidence that it could have reclaimed and resold the rejected produce had timely notice been given. Damages were therefore purely speculative, and this claim was dismissed.
Waiver/Rejection Claim — SURVIVES SUMMARY JUDGMENT: The contract gave Moore (not CHR) the right and responsibility to ensure produce met quality specifications set forth in Exhibit B, and Moore retained title until customer acceptance. CHR argued that produce failing to meet these standards could be rejected at the buyer's expense. However, Moore testified that CHR's own quality-control representative on Moore's farm directed Moore which produce to pick, pack, and ship, and made the final acceptance decisions. The court held this conduct was inconsistent with the contract terms placing quality responsibility on Moore, and that a reasonable jury could find CHR waived its contractual right to reject by directing shipment of potentially non-conforming produce — thereby shifting the rejection risk onto itself. Under Minnesota law, waiver requires an intentional relinquishment of a known right (Slidell, Inc. v. Millennium Inorganic Chems., Inc., 460 F.3d 1047 (8th Cir. 2006)), and is ordinarily a jury question (Pollard v. Southdale Gardens of Edina Condo. Assoc., 698 N.W.2d 449 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005)). Summary judgment was denied on this claim.
Powe's Claims — Mostly SURVIVE CHR sought summary judgment against Powe solely on the ground that Powe's Rule 30(b)(6) corporate designee (the witness a corporation designates to testify on its behalf) was inadequately prepared for her deposition — specifically, she could not recall specific damage amounts for certain purchase orders without her notes, which she had not brought. The court found this insufficient to warrant terminating Powe's entire case. The designee was able to identify the documents and methods used to calculate damages; any confusion appeared partly attributable to the attorneys' use of different accounting forms. The court also noted CHR had less drastic remedies available, including continuing the deposition or seeking exclusion of specific damages evidence under Rule 37(b)(2) (Cedar Hill Hardware & Constr. Supply, Inc. v. Ins. Corp. of Hannover, 563 F.3d 329 (8th Cir. 2009)). Granting full summary judgment would be grossly disproportionate. Summary judgment was denied except as to Powe's withdrawn 'Load Should Have Been Sold On Contract' damages category, which was dismissed with prejudice.
Default Judgment Against Global Fresh and CE Comercial — GRANTED IN FULL Global Fresh and CE Comercial stopped participating in the litigation in 2021 after their counsel withdrew. As corporations, they are legally required to be represented by licensed counsel in federal court (Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194 (1993)). The Clerk of Court entered default on November 14, 2024. Neither entity appeared at the February 19, 2025 default judgment hearing. The court found CHR met all requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55.
On CHR's counterclaims, the court found the following breaches and awarded damages: - 2017 Agreement (Global Fresh only): Failed to provide minimum weekly asparagus volumes for 15 weeks (93,154 fewer crates). Using USDA price reports, lost sales would have generated $2,478,030.51; CHR's lost 8% commission = $198,242.44 plus prejudgment interest. CHR may also seek attorney's fees under the 2017 agreement. - 2018 Agreement (Global Fresh and CE Comercial jointly and severally): Failed to provide minimum volumes for 23 weeks (102,735 fewer crates). Lost commission at 8% = $156,153.28 plus prejudgment interest. - 2019 Agreement (Global Fresh and CE Comercial jointly and severally): Failed to provide volumes for every week of the season (722,520 fewer crates). Lost commission at 10% = $1,453,862.30; CHR also incurred a $207,165 loss reselling asparagus purchased to cover the shortage; plus the unrepaid $1,000,000 advance = total $2,661,027.30 plus prejudgment interest.
Global Fresh's and CE Comercial's own claims against CHR were dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court directed entry of final judgment as to these two parties under Rule 54(b), finding no just reason to delay.
Court's Note on Pleading Clarity The court observed that the third amended complaint and briefing were poorly organized regarding which plaintiff was asserting which claim, and that Moore was never mentioned by name in any count of the complaint despite allegedly having separate claims — a drafting problem the court flagged but worked around.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 18-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.