`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`
`
`
`* CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-4236
`
`
`CURTIS LAWRENCE
`*
`
`
`
`d/b/a
`
`
`* SECTION
`SKYWARD TRANSPORTATION,
`*
`INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`* DIVISION
`
`Plaintiff
`
`
`
`*
`
`
`
`
`
`
`* JUDGE
`Versus
`
`
`
`
`*
`
`
`
`
`
`
`* MAGISTRATE
`FRESH DEL MONTE PRODUCE,
`*
`INC. a/k/a DEL MONTE FRESH
`* JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
`PRODUCE (TEXAS), INC.
`
`*
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*
`
`Defendant
`
`
`
`* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`DUE TO DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION,
`TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE AND
`BREACH OF CONTRACT
`
`
`
`
`NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Curtis Lawrence (“Plaintiff”
`
`and/or “Lawrence”), who brings this action pursuant to Federal law, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981,
`
`which prohibits the race discrimination and retaliation Plaintiff suffered due to the conduct of
`
`Defendant, Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. a/k/a Del Monte Fresh Produce, Inc. (“Defendant”
`
`and/or “Del Monte”), as well as pursuant to Texas state law, which prohibits both breach of
`
`contract and tortious interference with contracts.
`
`I.
`Jurisdiction
`
`
`
`
`This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 (federal question). The
`
`Court may also exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over all of Plaintiff’s Texas state law claims
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367 including but not limited to claims under Texas state tort law.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-04236 Document 1 Filed on 12/14/20 in TXSD Page 2 of 11
`
`II.
`Venue
`
`
`
`
`Venue is alleged to be proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b)(c)
`
`because an appreciable amount of the transportation services and deliveries plaintiff provided to
`
`Defendant occurred in this judicial district, including deliveries to/from Defendant’s facility
`
`located at 3023 Del Monte Drive in Houston, Texas.
`
`III.
`Parties
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, Curtis Lawrence, is an African-American male, who at all times relevant to this
`
`lawsuit, was doing business as the sole Owner, President and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of
`
`Skyward Transportation, Inc. (“Skyward”), an African-American owned and operated business
`
`that was transacting business, including the transportation and delivery of products and
`
`commodities, in both intrastate and interstate commerce, for the Defendant, Del Monte.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`Defendant, Del Monte, is a domestic juridical entity authorized to do, and doing, business
`
`within the State of Texas and this Federal judicial district. At all times pertinent to this litigation,
`
`Del Monte was authorized to conduct and was actually conducting transportation operations of its
`
`products and commodities throughout the United States. Defendant, Del Monte, contracted with
`
`or otherwise engaged the Plaintiff to transport its products and commodities in the State of Texas
`
`and also on an interstate basis, through his trucking company, Skyward Transportation, Inc.
`
`During its business dealings with Plaintiff, the Defendant unlawfully discriminated and retaliated
`
`against Plaintiff to his detriment, tortiously interfered with Plaintiff’s third-party contract(s), and
`
`also breached the contract between Plaintiff and Defendant, causing injury and damage.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-04236 Document 1 Filed on 12/14/20 in TXSD Page 3 of 11
`
`V.
`Bid Process
`
`
`
`
`Defendant publicly advertised to the general public that it would open all of its “lanes”
`
`(transportation routes for its products/commodities) for bid. All qualified trucking transporters
`
`were invited to bid. At a minimum, each bidding transportation company had to own, lease and/or
`
`control a minimum of fifteen (15) tractors and trailers. Plaintiff was so qualified, as he owned,
`
`leased and/or controlled at least thirty (30) tractors and/or trailers.
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`The Plaintiff timely and properly submitted a bid on fourteen (14) of the lanes that
`
`Defendant sought public bids on. On information and belief, Plaintiff’s company, Skyward, was
`
`the only African-American owned and/or operated entity that submitted bids.
`
`VII.
`
`
`
` On or about January 14, 2020, the Defendant opened the bids it had publicly solicited,
`
`including the fourteen (14) bids it received from Plaintiff. Each of Plaintiff’s fourteen (14) bids
`
`was the lowest bid for each of the fourteen (14) lanes Plaintiff submitted bids on, and thus, Plaintiff
`
`should have been recognized as the winning bidder on each of those fourteen (14) lanes, but he
`
`was not so recognized.
`
`VIII.
`
`
`
`In fact, Defendant refused to recognize Plaintiff as the winning bidder on thirteen (13) of
`
`the fourteen (14) lanes at issue, even though he had the lowest bid and was further qualified
`
`because he owned/controlled over thirty (30) trucks/trailers. Those thirteen (13) lanes were
`
`awarded to several non-African American entities, (hereinafter referred to individually and/or
`
`collectively as “Prime”), despite Plaintiff’s equal or greater qualifications and/or lower bids.
`
`Moreover, Plaintiff was only awarded one (1) lane, and that lane had the most economically
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-04236 Document 1 Filed on 12/14/20 in TXSD Page 4 of 11
`
`disadvantageous logistics of the fourteen (14) lanes for which Plaintiff had submitted the lowest
`
`bid.
`
`IX.
`
`
`
`To compound the discrimination, on multiple occasions when any given Prime failed to
`
`adequately perform, despite being awarded a winning bid on any particular one of the thirteen (13)
`
`lanes instead of Plaintiff, Defendant actually called upon the Plaintiff to remediate that Prime’s
`
`deficiencies and to service those thirteen (13) lanes, which Plaintiff did.
`
`X.
`
`
`
`Despite Plaintiff’s remedial performance of the very same transportation services that the
`
`Prime was obligated to perform, Plaintiff was not compensated on an equal basis (i.e. the same
`
`money that the Prime received for the same work), and Plaintiff was actually paid a lessor amount
`
`than the Prime would customarily receive, for the exact same work.
`
` XI.
`
`In fact, to add further insult to injury, Plaintiff was only paid the amount of the lower, yet
`
`unaccepted, bid he had previously submitted (albeit unsuccessfully) for each of the thirteen (13)
`
`routes awarded to the Prime. The only appreciable difference between Skyward and the Primes
`
`(other than the Primes’ deficient performance) is that Skyward is African-American owned, and
`
`the Primes are not. As such, Plaintiff was subjected to racially disparate treatment.
`
`XII.
`
`
`
`Additionally, Defendant’s transportation dispatcher, Cristobal Villafranca, specifically
`
`mis-stated to other employees of the Defendant that Plaintiff was not performing adequately, that
`
`Plaintiff (and his company, Skyward) was (were) deficient because he (it) was African-American.
`
`Mr. Villafranca also instructed his assistant, Sharonda Masters, to take work away from Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-04236 Document 1 Filed on 12/14/20 in TXSD Page 5 of 11
`
`deny Plaintiff available work for which Plaintiff was qualified, to impose excessive and
`
`unwarranted discipline against Plaintiff, and to treat Plaintiff differently when approving and
`
`paying Plaintiff’s invoices, all because of Plaintiff’s race.
`
`XIII.
`
`
`
`Defendant’s above conduct was a result of racially discriminatory practices and racial bias,
`
`which caused Plaintiff financial injury and other damages.
`
`XIV.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff complained of his unfair treatment, but when he did so, his complaints were met
`
`with additional discrimination and retaliation. One of the most dramatic examples of this
`
`retaliation is what is referred to herein as the La Bodega incident.
`
`XV.
`La Bodega Incident
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff had, lawfully and independently of his contract with Defendant, also contracted
`
`with an entity known as La Bodega, to pick-up and deliver products/commodities that La Bodega
`
`had purchased and needed delivered, including products and commodities La Bodega had
`
`purchased from Defendant.
`
`XVI.
`
`
`
`However, due to Defendant’s racial bias and retaliatory animus, after Plaintiff had
`
`complained to Defendant of unlawful racial discrimination regarding the bid process, work
`
`assignments, and racially-disparate treatment, Defendant retaliated, inter alia, by intentionally and
`
`tortiously interfering with the contract that existed between Plaintiff and La Bodega.
`
`XVII.
`
`
`
`More specifically, La Bodega did business with Defendant, Del Monte, and one of La
`
`Bodega’s biggest purchases from Defendant was Del Monte bananas. La Bodega had contracted
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-04236 Document 1 Filed on 12/14/20 in TXSD Page 6 of 11
`
`with Plaintiff to pick up the bananas La Bodega had purchased (FOB) from Del Monte at the port
`
`of Houston, and deliver them to La Bodega’s facilities.
`
`XVIII.
`
`
`
`Defendant, however, retaliated against Plaintiff, and tortiously interfered with Plaintiff’s
`
`contract with La Bodega, by prohibiting Plaintiff from accessing Defendant’s loading dock in the
`
`Port of Galveston, thus preventing Plaintiff from picking up loads of the bananas La Bodega had
`
`purchased from Defendant and transporting them to La Bodega’s facilities elsewhere, including in
`
`the Houston area. Consequently, Plaintiff could not fulfill the contractual obligations to La Bodega
`
`for no other reason than Defendant’s racial discrimination, retaliation and tortious interference.
`
`XIX.
`
`
`
`As a result, Plaintiff lost the revenues and profits he would have otherwise realized
`
`pursuant to the La Bodega contract. Further, Defendant actually usurped Plaintiff’s contract to
`
`deliver bananas to La Bodega by transporting and delivering said bananas to La Bodega itself, but
`
`at a substantially higher price for delivery than Plaintiff had been charging La Bodega.
`
`XX.
`
`
`
`Thus, Plaintiff not only lost the revenues and profits associated with the La Bodega
`
`contract, but La Bodega had to pay a higher price just to get the Del Monte bananas delivered. As
`
`a result of Defendant’s racially-motivated retaliation and tortuous interference with Plaintiff’s
`
`contract with La Bodega, Defendant not only violated Plaintiff’s civil rights, but also reaped a
`
`financial profit while doing so.
`
`XXI.
`No Pay and/or Slow Pay
`
`
`
`
`Defendant, Del Monte, further racially discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff,
`
`through its invoice payment and processing procedures, when it treated Plaintiff less favorably
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-04236 Document 1 Filed on 12/14/20 in TXSD Page 7 of 11
`
`than other (non-African American) transporters regarding payment of Plaintiff’s invoices. In
`
`addition to the racially-motivated limitations on the amount of the work Defendant deigned to give
`
`to Plaintiff, as well as the more onerous terms imposed thereon, Defendant also “slow paid”
`
`Plaintiff, or in some instances, failed to pay Plaintiff, but did not treat non-African American
`
`transporters the same way.
`
`XXII.
`
`
`
`When Plaintiff complained of this unlawful treatment, Defendant further retaliated and
`
`discriminated against Plaintiff, and attempted to put Plaintiff out of business, by escalating its
`
`failure to properly, timely and fully pay Plaintiff’s invoices, and the monies Plaintiff had earned
`
`and was contractually entitled to receive for the services Plaintiff provided.
`
`XXIII.
`
`
`
`The Defendant further racially discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff by using the
`
`pretext that Plaintiff’s invoices were not in proper form, and/or that Plaintiff’s performance was
`
`somehow deficient or sub-standard, when unlawfully denying payment. This pretext was an
`
`intentional refusal by Defendant, motivated by unlawful racial bias and retaliatory animus, based
`
`on trumped-up discipline for de minimis “issues” that Defendant did not impose against non-
`
`African American entities when similar issues occurred between the non-African American
`
`transporters and Defendant.
`
`XXIV.
`
`
`
`At the time Defendant stopped doing business with Plaintiff, it was indebted to him in the
`
`sum of $150,175.91, which remains unpaid, owing and overdue. (See Exhibit #1).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-04236 Document 1 Filed on 12/14/20 in TXSD Page 8 of 11
`
`XXV.
`Disparate “Claims” Process Enforcement
`
`On or about May 26, 2020, Plaintiff made it perfectly clear he would not tolerate any further
`
`
`
`discriminatory conduct by Del Monte and indicated that he might need to seek legal redress.
`
`XXVI.
`
`
`
`Shortly thereafter, Defendant emailed Plaintiff several trumped-up “claims”, purportedly
`
`showing that Plaintiff owed Del Monte thousands of dollars for alleged performance issues going
`
`back many months.
`
`XXVII.
`
`
`
`Del Monte’s retaliatory tactic of issuing these sham “claim” disputes is an obvious pretext,
`
`intended to “document” a justification for the acts of discrimination and retaliation taken by Del
`
`Monte once it was on notice that Plaintiff intended to seek legal redress.
`
`XXVIII.
`First Cause of Action
`Federal Law
`Race Discrimination Under 42 USC 1981
`
`Plaintiff reavers, realleges and incorporates herein, in globo and in extenso, by reference,
`
`
`
`all averments, allegations and representations contained in paragraphs I through XXVII, inclusive.
`
`Plaintiff further alleges that he was subjected to unlawful and racially discriminatory animus and
`
`treatment by Del Monte regarding the bid process, route distribution and assignment, complaint
`
`process, payment history, termination of contract, bogus “claims” process, and other aspects of the
`
`commercial arrangement between Plaintiff and Del Monte. Plaintiff also alleges that Del Monte’s
`
`unlawful, racially discriminatory actions, conduct and decisions were evidenced by the statements,
`
`comments, actions and decisions of various managerial and supervisory personnel, including but
`
`not limited to Cristobal Villafranca and Robert Savage. Plaintiff further alleges that Del Monte’s
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-04236 Document 1 Filed on 12/14/20 in TXSD Page 9 of 11
`
`professed motive, rationale and/or justification for its unlawful, racially discriminatory actions,
`
`conduct and decisions were pretexts for Del Monte’s unlawful racial discrimination and animus.
`
`XXIX.
`Second Cause of Action
`Federal Law
`Retaliation Under 42 USC 1981
`
`
`
`Plaintiff reavers, realleges and incorporates herein, in globo and in extenso, by reference,
`
`all averments, allegations and representations contained in paragraphs I through XXI, inclusive.
`
`Plaintiff further alleges that he was retaliated against, in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, by
`
`Del Monte, after and because Plaintiff complained about racial bias, discrimination and prejudice,
`
`when he suffered adverse economic consequences subsequent to, and as a result of, his complaints
`
`against racial bias, discrimination and prejudice.
`
`XXX.
`Third Cause Of Action
`Texas State Law
`Tortious Interference
`
`Plaintiff reavers, realleges and incorporates herein, in globo and in extenso, by reference,
`
`all averments, allegations and representations contained in paragraphs I through XXIX, inclusive.
`
`Plaintiff further alleges that he had a contract, which Del Monte knew and was well aware of, with
`
`La Bodega, which Del Monte intentionally interfered with, resulting in La Bodega’s breach and/or
`
`rendering Plaintiff’s performance thereof impossible or more burdensome, without justification,
`
`causing damage to Plaintiff.
`
`XXXI.
`Fourth Cause of Action
`Texas State Law
`Breach of Contract
`
`Plaintiff reavers, realleges and incorporates herein, in globo and in extenso, by reference,
`
`all averments, allegations and representations contained in paragraphs I through XXX, inclusive.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-04236 Document 1 Filed on 12/14/20 in TXSD Page 10 of 11
`
`Del Monte, in violation of Texas state law, breached its contract with Plaintiff by failing to pay
`
`Plaintiff the amounts due and owing for services Plaintiff properly and adequately performed and
`
`provided, which, at a minimum, amount to $150,175.91, plus all applicable interest and penalties
`
`awardable under the contract between Plaintiff and Defendant.
`
`XXXII.
`Plaintiff Demands a Trial by Jury
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all claims asserted in
`
`this Complaint so triable.
`
`XXXIII.
`Prayer for Relief
`
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Curtis Lawrence, respectfully prays that this Court grant
`
`judgment to be entered against the defendant, Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. a/k/a Del Monte
`
`Fresh Produce, Inc., for all the relief to which Plaintiff is entitled under the law, as follows, but not
`
`limited to:
`
`
`
`A)
`
`That Plaintiff shall be awarded the maximum amount of damages available under
`
`the aforementioned laws;
`
`
`
`B)
`
`That Plaintiff shall be awarded all reasonable expenses that were necessarily
`
`incurred in prosecution of this action, plus all reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, as provided by
`
`any and all applicable federal and state law; and
`
`
`
`C)
`
`Any and all such other relief shall be granted in favor of the Plaintiff, as this Court
`
`deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-04236 Document 1 Filed on 12/14/20 in TXSD Page 11 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`______s/ John O. Pieksen, Jr,____________
`John O. Pieksen, Jr. (La. Bar #21023) T.A.
`Michael G. Bagneris (La. Bar #2658)
`Bagneris, Pieksen & Associates, LLC
`935 Gravier Street, Suite 2110
`New Orleans, LA 70112
`Phone (504) 493-7990 | Fax (504) 493-7991
`Email: bagneris@bpajustice.com
`
` pieksen@bpajustice.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiff, Curtis Lawrence, d/b/a
`Skyward Transportation, Inc.
`
`
`
`SERVICE INFORMATION:
`
`Plaintiff will issue a Request for Waiver
`Of Summons and Citation to Defendant
`Through Defendant’s Registered Agent
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`