Jackson Jambalaya

Ruan Transport argued it does not have a duty to ship alcohol to ABC customers in a motion to dismiss filed in federal court this week.  Aloha Wine & Spirits, Old Rooster Holdings, and Rosetti's Liquor Barrell sued Ruan earlier this year, alleging damages caused by the implosion of the ABC warehouse in Gluckstadt.  Ruan manages the warehouse for ABC. 

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.

Plaintiffs’ negligence claims are not viable for the simple reason that Ruan has no legal duty to Plaintiffs to provide them with alcohol. Nor are Plaintiffs “direct” beneficiaries to Ruan’s contract with the Mississippi Department of Revenue, as required for their breach of contract claim. Plaintiffs’ “fraudulent inducement” claim is likewise subject to dismissal because the First Amended Complaint does not allege that Ruan made any representations to Plaintiffs. Next, the unjust enrichment claim is deficient for multiple reasons including a failure to allege any “mistaken” payment or any payment to Ruan whatsoever. Finally, Plaintiffs’ conversion claim must be dismissed for several reasons, including because they no “right” to receive liquor from anybody.

Ruan argued the package stores are required to purchase their wine and liquor from ABC.  Ruan simply manages the warehouse and ships through other companies to ABC customers.  The company points out it has no contract nor business dealings with "liquor retailers." The plaintiffs did not sue ABC or the Department of Revenue. 

The motion's supporting memorandum states the retailers have no contract with Ruan.  Ruan can't be charged with fraudulent inducement because it made "no representations" the ABC customers. The charge of unjust enrichment must fail as well because the plaintiffs did not pay anything to Ruan.  

If Ruan has no duty to ABC customers, said customers can not sue Ruan for negligence.  The retailers can not claim to be a direct beneficiary of ABC's contract with Ruan.  The only duties Ruan owes are to ABC.  The memorandum gets a little cute (p.10):  

In fact, it is legally impossible for either Ruan or the MDOR to owe any duty to Plaintiffs under the Ruan Contract because the MDOR is not required to actually sell or distribute liquor to" "Plaintiffs. Mississippi’s statutory framework merely authorizes the MDOR as the exclusive" "“wholesale distributor and seller” of alcoholic beverage “the right to import and sell alcoholic beverages,” but imposes no duty requiring such sales. Miss. Code Ann. § 67-1-41(1) (emphasis added). The warehousing, purchasing, and sale of alcoholic beverages is an entirely discretionary function of the MDOR.

Plaintiffs thus have no right to purchase alcohol as it is a privilege "afforded by statute."  

Attorneys Matthew McDade and Matthew Warren of Balch and Bingham represent Ruan.  Attorneys Michael Casano and Timothy Porter represent the plaintiffs.  

The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Taylor McNeel and Magistrate Robert Myers.