JetEx, LLC, et al v Ross Scottsdale, LLC, No. 2:2009cv01561 - Document 77 (D. Ariz. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION that Plaintiff's 60 Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 12/15/10.(ESL)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
JetEx, LLC, et al v Ross Scottsdale, LLC Doc. 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 JetEx, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability) company; Arch Insurance Company, a ) Missouri corporation, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) ) Ross Scottsdale, LLC d/b/a Scottsdale Air) Center, a Delaware limited liability) company, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) No. CV09-1561-PHX-NVW ORDER AND OPINION [Re: Motion at Docket 60] 17 18 19 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 60.) The Court will deny the motion. 20 Plaintiff JetEx, LLC, owns a Cessna Citation 560 airplane, FAA registration number 21 N990JH, and Plaintiff Arch Insurance Company insured this airplane. The Court will refer 22 to JetEx and Arch Insurance collectively as “JetEx.” 23 Defendant Scottsdale Air Center (“SAC”) is a business operating at the Scottsdale 24 Municipal Airport. Among other things, SAC provides a hangar, staging area, and parking 25 for private jets. (Doc. 61 at 6.) This lawsuit is about damage to the airplane allegedly 26 inflicted while it was in SAC’s care. 27 The parties agree that, on November 7, 2008, a man named Jake Harouny flew JetEx’s 28 airplane from Salt Lake City to the Scottsdale Municipal Airport. Before that flight, Harouny Dockets.Justia.com 1 had arranged for SAC to take care of the airplane during his stay in Arizona. Therefore, 2 when Harouny arrived in Scottsdale, he taxied to SAC’s facilities, shut off the engine, and 3 turned the airplane over to SAC. Certain SAC personnel then visually inspected the airplane 4 for damage. According to the inspection record, the only problem noted was a paint chip on 5 the left wing. 6 Sometime after this inspection, SAC towed the airplane to a parking location some 7 distance away from its main facilities. The next day, SAC towed the airplane to a hangar for 8 cleaning. Members of the cleaning crew found noticeable damage on the airplane’s left 9 wing. Photographs submitted by JetEx (the authenticity of which SAC does not dispute for 10 purposes of this motion) show that the left wing suffered two substantial scratches, running 11 parallel to each other from the wing’s leading edge along the underside. One scratch runs 12 all the way to the trailing edge and aileron. The other scratch does not seem to run that far, 13 but it appears to have left a noticeable gash about midway through its course. (See Docs. 66- 14 3, 66-4.) This damage rendered the plane no longer airworthy, requiring repairs paid for by 15 Arch Insurance. 16 JetEx claims that Harouny and others inspected the airplane before it left Salt Lake 17 City and noticed no damage at that time. Harouny also claims that he encountered nothing 18 at the Salt Lake City airport, in flight, or at the Scottsdale airport that could have caused such 19 damage. JetEx therefore sued SAC for negligent property damage (including through a res 20 ipsa loquitur theory) and for breach of an implied bailment-for-hire contract. JetEx has now 21 moved for summary judgment, seeking to 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 establish[] as a matter of law based on the uncontested evidence that a contract of bailment for hire existed between plaintiff and defendant, that the aircraft was damaged while in the care, custody and control of the defendant pursuant to the bailment, and that the defendant is legally liable for the plaintiffs’ damages because it cannot produce any evidence to meet its burden of showing that the damage was caused by something that occurred in spite of the defendant’s reasonable care. (Doc. 61 at 3.) In response, SAC conceded for purposes of the motion that it and JetEx entered into -2- 1 a bailment-for-hire relationship during the relevant time. SAC, however, offered evidence 2 that, a few weeks before Harouny flew the airplane to Scottsdale, he flew the airplane to an 3 airport in Mount Pleasant, Utah. That airport allegedly has a small parking ramp requiring 4 a tight turn, and surrounding the parking ramp are green-colored steel fence posts. 5 According to SAC, 6 7 8 9 10 [a] chemical analysis has established that the green paint on these fence posts matches the green paint that was transferred to the damaged area on the aircraft. Furthermore, two of these fence posts lean at an angle consistent with a collision with the left wing as the aircraft moved in a parallel direction. Finally, and perhaps most important, the damage to the left wing area fits the profile of the fence posts (i.e., the imprint on a grill on the underside of the left wing area matches the size and shape of the fence posts). 11 (Doc. 71 at 2 (citations omitted).) SAC also argued that, even absent this evidence, it had 12 raised a triable issue of fact through the testimony of its employees who were “‘very 13 adamant’ that they ‘didn’t damage this aircraft,’” mostly because they did not believe that 14 anything they did or any structures at the Scottsdale airport could have caused such damage. 15 (Id. at 3.) 16 In reply, JetEx conceded that SAC’s evidence from Mount Pleasant, Utah, raised a 17 triable issue of fact, but JetEx nonetheless asked this court to “streamline the trial” by 18 addressing whether there existed a bailment-for-hire between JetEx and SAC,1 and whether 19 SAC had met the degree of care required by the nature of the bailment. (Doc. 75 at 1.) 20 Focusing on the degree of care question, Plaintiffs argued that if a bailee returns the bailor’s 21 goods with damage that did not exist at the beginning of the bailment, the bailee must rebut 22 a strong presumption that its negligence caused the damage. JetEx then asserted, for 23 example, “All the evidence taken in the case shows that Harouny delivered the aircraft to 24 SAC in good condition and that the damage must have occurred during the bailment” (id. at 25 3), and “SAC has not provided a scintilla of evidence to show that the damage to the aircraft 26 27 28 1 As stated above, SAC conceded this issue for purposes of summary judgment, but Plaintiffs apparently want the Court to rule on it for all purposes. -3- 1 was due to some cause other than its own negligence” (id. at 4). 2 The problem with JetEx’s reply argument is that (as JetEx conceded earlier in its brief) 3 SAC has provided more than “a scintilla of evidence to show that the damage to the aircraft 4 was due to some cause other than its own negligence.” Assuming SAC’s evidence shows 5 what SAC says it does — e.g., that Harouny visited the Mount Pleasant airport, that the 6 Mount Pleasant fence posts’ paint and profile match the damage on the airplane, and that 7 nothing at the Scottsdale airport fits the profile of the airplane damage — a reasonable jury 8 could believe it and conclude that the damage at issue happened before the airplane arrived 9 in Scottsdale. There would still be countervailing evidence — e.g., Harouney’s testimony 10 that he thoroughly inspected the airplane before the trip to Scottsdale, SAC’s arrival 11 inspection records showing no more than a paint chip on the left wing — but resolving that 12 conflict is the jury’s role. And if the jury resolves it in favor of SAC, then the entire question 13 of SAC’s duties as a bailee becomes moot. Therefore, the Court sees no usefulness in 14 deciding now, as a matter of law, whether SAC and JetEx had a bailment-for-hire 15 relationship, and if so, whether SAC has sufficient evidence to show that it fulfilled its duty 16 of care. 17 18 19 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 60) is DENIED. DATED this 15th day of December 2010. 20 21 22 /S/ JOHN W. SEDWICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
