The lawsuits are starting to pile up against ABC warehouse manager Ruan Transport after the company blew up the distribution of wines and spirits in Mississippi earlier this year.
 |
| Sam's Club in February |
The Mississippi Department of Revenue awarded the warehouse contract to Ruan in 2023 after it scored the best among four competing proposals. The company is located in Iowa. The contract is for four years with two four-year renewals. DOR pays Ruan $2.22 per case with the rate rising to $2.64 in the last year of the contract.
Ruan Transport shut the warehouse down for a week in early January to take inventory. With the warehouse closed, Ruan replaced the software and conveyor belt systems. The software was not tested and did not communicate with ABC's MARS software. Ruan replaced the conveyor system with a pick a pallet system. The result was a total meltdown as shipping times skyrocketed from 48 hours to nearly a month as Ruan shipped less than 50% of cases ordered for a month, crippling casinos, restaurants, and package store owners alike.
Calistoga Wine & Spirits of Ridgeland sued Ruan in Madison County Circuit Court on March 24. Three other package stores on the Gulf Coast sued the company in their respective Circuit Courts as well. Earlier post
Attorneys Michael Casano and Tim Porter represent all four plaintiffs. The Calistoga lawsuit makes the same allegations as the other three lawsuits:
17. In early January 2026, the ABC warehouse underwent a planned shutdown for annual inventory. During this period, Ruan implemented a new software management system (warehouse management system, or ""WMS"").
18. The new software system implemented by Ruan was not compatible with the existing conveyor belt system used to load delivery trucks at the warehouse.19. As a direct result of this incompatibility, three of the four conveyor belt lines at the warehouse were removed from service. The software contractor responsible for providing support for the conveyor belt system ceased providing those services.20. Rather than having a functional contingency plan in place, Ruan reverted the warehouse to a dramatically slower manual ""pick and pallet"" system for loading trucks. This resulted in a massive and ongoing reduction in the warehouse's throughput capacity.21. As of the February 17-18, 2026 legislative hearing, the warehouse had accumulated a backlog of approximately 199,000 unshipped cases of alcoholic beverages. As of March 1, 2026, that number was estimated to be in excess of 220,000 unshipped cases.22. It is anticipated through legislative oversight testimony that the backlog would not be reduced by half until March 2026 at the earliest, and would not be fully resolved until May 2026.
The complaint charges Calistoga suffered because Ruan could not (allegedly) get its act together. Ruan shipped product within 1-3 days of placing an order but "beginning in early January 2026", the plaintiffs orders placed through the MARS ordering system were not fulfilled or were only partially fulfilled while delayed for several weeks.
Ah, the MARS ordering system. MARS is the ABC's software. Ruan installed the Blue Yonder software at the warehouse without beta testing. It was discovered after it was too late that Blue Yonder could not communicate with MARS. No communications means no orders are taken. No orders taken means no orders shipped.
Ruan stands accused of implementing a new warehouse software management system without ensuring it was compatible with the conveyor belt system, removing the conveyor belts without having a "functional replacement system", failing to have a contingency plan, and allowing the backlog to grow to over 200,000 cases before taking "adequate measures."
The complaint alleges Ruan unjustly enriched itself ABC customers such as the plaintiffs paid for their orders through ABC. ABC in turn paid Ruan. The complaint alleges:
A portion of the amounts paid by Plaintiff was remitted to Ruan as per-case fees under the Contract for warehouse operations and delivery services.43. Ruan received the benefit of per-case fees attributable to Plaintiff’s orders but failed to deliver the product for which Plaintiff was charged, or delivered only a portion of the product ordered. Commissioner Graham acknowledged billing errors at the February 17, 2026 legislative hearing. Ruan has been enriched by its retention of fees for services it failed to perform.
Calistoga argues it is unjust for Ruan to keep their money while failing to deliver their orders.
Numerous ABC customers have complained they paid for orders but ABC kept their money when the orders were not delivered.
The Ridgeland wine store seeks damages for lost revenue, lost profits, charges for undelivered orders, costs of mitigation, and harm to its business reputation as well as punitive damages and attorney's fees.
The case is assigned to Madison County Circuit Judge Stephen Ratcliff.
11 comments:
Get the Legislature's sticky, nasty fingers outta my wine.
Let markets run ordering and distribution. Taxes will still flow to the bloodsuckers from point of sale.
Sovereign immunity!
Does it apply to contractors?
Let’s just get the stupid idiots with the state government out of the way. The fact that MS is still a control state is ridiculous.
Just more mush-mouthed BS from the Magnolia State.
No wonder the smartest kids are abandoning this place as soon as they graduate from high school.
Delbert and Gunn and maybe even Shad...hell all state officials.... should be disqualified from running for Governor. Between ABC and PERS, what can they run?
I don't know. I'm told it gets you out of traffic tickets...
The administration at the state level is starting to look like the massive chronic dysfunction that is Jackson. That is pretty f'ed up.
Doesn't Ruan have a contract with the state rather than the ABC's customers? Not sure how the ABC's customers can reach Ruan here.
Also one might wonder if Ruan's contract with the state covers Ruan's potential liabilities in a situation like this. I'm sure a blind bet would need to favor Ruan's team rather than Lynn Fitch's team here.
TLDR: Ruan has probably been here before, ABC probably has not.
@6:42. I was wondering the same thing. The plaintiffs allege that they are intended third party beneficiaries of the state contract with Ruan.
I'm not sure how the negligence claim survives the pure pecuniary loss rule.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t Casano a closing atty? I also question the contract is between Ruan and the state. But suing the state you have tort law to deal with. I bet plaintiffs would drop the suit if we would abolish the ABC and their way of doing business.
Is the ordered liquor considered the property of the permit holder held in trust by the third party after payment is rendered and order accepted? Is the property then “destroyed” if it never gets delivered thus causing harm to the liquor owner? Sounds a little bit like a reach but I’m not going to pretend to know either way since the whole ABC system is no nonsensical in the first place. If the state is charging a bailment fee wouldn’t that imply that the property does not belong to the state? No idea.
Post a Comment