Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Amair, Inc. v. Gapex Aviation Sp. Z O.O.

United States District Court, D. Colorado

April 17, 2019

AMAIR, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
GAPEX AVIATION SP. Z O.O., a Polish corporation, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

          CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Amair, Inc.'s Motion and Memorandum for Entry of Default Judgment Against Gapex Aviation SP. Z o.o. (Doc. # 94.) Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff's Motion. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's Motion is granted in part and denied in part.

         I. BACKGROUND [1] AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         This case arises out of a contract dispute between the parties. Plaintiff is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Nevada with its principal offices located in Denver, Colorado. Plaintiff is a full-service aircraft engineering, certification, design, and support company, and it supplies equipment and services to aircraft operators, manufacturers, completion centers, avionics manufacturers, and FAA repair stations.

         Defendant is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Poland, with its principal offices located in Grudziadz, Poland. Defendant is a provider of products and services including pilot training, taxi and small-displacement taxis, as well as the repair, maintenance and tuning of aircraft and spacecraft.

         On June 5, 2013, the parties entered into an agreement (“Mewa Purchase Agreement” or “Agreement”) according to which Defendant promised to sell its claims[2]to various assets (“the Mewa Assets” or “Assets”) to Plaintiff in exchange for $270, 000. The Mewa Assets relate to the design and development of the M20 “Mewa” twin engine piston aircraft. They include, inter alia, design documentation, production and tooling documents, as well as airplane parts. Pursuant to the Agreement, the Assets were supposed to be transferred to Plaintiff after Plaintiff had obtained “a new type certificate” for the airplane from the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”). (Doc. # 11-1 at 6.)

         Before Plaintiff could obtain the requisite certification from the FAA, however, Plaintiff had to first obtain certification from the European Aviation Safety Agency (“EASA”). Subsequently, the EASA could transfer the certification to the FAA according to a treaty between the United States and the European Union. Therefore, Plaintiff used its efforts and resources to attempt to obtain the certification from the EASA and FAA. Specifically, Plaintiff filed and paid for the application for the EASA certification.

         The procedure for obtaining the EASA certification required the relevant authorities to be provided with certain Assets, including the design documents of the M20 Mewa aircraft, which were in Defendant's possession. However, although Defendant initially expressed a willingness to grant Plaintiff access to the necessary documents, Defendant ultimately failed to do so. As a result, Plaintiff was unable to complete the certification process.

         Despite Plaintiff's numerous attempts to salvage the parties' arrangement, Defendant failed to cooperate with Plaintiff, and Defendant ultimately informed Plaintiff that it considered the Agreement to be void. As grounds for its decision to treat the Agreement as being void, Defendant cited demonstrably false reasons. For instance, Defendant claimed that Plaintiff failed to perform by not making a payment on time when the payment was not actually due. (Id. at 9, 20) (Defendant claimed that Plaintiff failed to make a payment on or before June 25, 2013, but the Agreement states that no payment was due until the FAA issued the requisite certification).

         As a result, Plaintiff initiated the instant action. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint asserts six[3] claims for relief:

• Breach of contract;

• Specific performance;

• Breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing;
• Constructive trust/equitable lien with respect to the Assets involved in the Agreement;
• Replevin; and
• Declaratory judgment that Plaintiff is entitled to ownership of and title to the Assets involved ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.