Stan Koch & Sons Trucking, Inc. v. Lau
- Susan Nelson
- 0:21-cv-01338
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 13
In Stan Koch & Sons Trucking v. Lau, Judge Nelson dismissed the federal bribery claim and dismissed the remaining state claims without prejudice.
Stan Koch & Sons Trucking, Inc., Stan Sing Lau, Dan Wu, WuLau, Inc., Meow Logistics, Inc., Straight Forwarding, Inc., Wilmac Enterprises LLC, and CIL Freight, Inc.
What happened
Stan Koch & Sons Trucking, Inc. sued Stan Sing Lau and others over an alleged kickback scheme involving transportation services. The company claimed that Lau and other defendants used inflated prices and payments to obtain contracts, violating federal and Minnesota law.
The court ruled that the federal Robinson-Patman Act commercial-bribery provision applies only to sales of tangible goods, not transportation services. It therefore dismissed that federal claim with prejudice and declined to decide the remaining state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.
Judge Susan Richard Nelson granted the motions to dismiss as stated, and denied the motions for judgment on the pleadings and to transfer venue as moot.
The detailed version
- Stan Koch & Sons Trucking, Inc. v. Lau · No. 0:21-cv-01338
- Susan Nelson
- Dec. 9, 2021
Background
Stan Koch & Sons Trucking, Inc. alleged that former employee Stan Sing Lau participated in a kickback scheme involving WuLau, Inc. and several freight-forwarding companies. According to the complaint, Lau negotiated prices and approved invoices for freight-forwarding companies while receiving payments through WuLau. The alleged payments totaled more than $800,000. The complaint asserted nine causes of action: one federal claim under Section 2(c) of the Robinson-Patman Act, concerning commercial bribery, and eight claims under Minnesota statutes and common law.
Federal Claim
The defendants moved to dismiss the federal claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. They argued that Section 2(c) applies only to transactions involving goods, wares, or merchandise, not transportation services.
The court agreed. After considering the Robinson-Patman Act as a whole, the court concluded that Section 2(c) is limited to the sale of tangible goods. Because the alleged kickbacks concerned transportation services, the complaint failed to state a claim under Section 2(c), even accepting its factual allegations as true. The court dismissed Count IV as to all defendants.
Remaining Claims and Disposition
After dismissing the only federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims in the same case, over the remaining Minnesota claims. It dismissed Counts I–III and V–IX without prejudice.
The court ordered the following:
- The Motions to Dismiss [Doc. Nos. 26, 37, 48] were GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE as to Count IV against all defendants. - The Motions to Dismiss [Doc. Nos. 26, 37, 48] were GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Counts I–III and V–IX against all defendants. - The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. No. 44] was DENIED AS MOOT. - The Motion to Transfer Venue [Doc. No. 53] was DENIED AS MOOT.
The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.