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.

Inc. v. Jet Midwest, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division

August 22, 2016

Fabas Consulting Int’l, Inc., Plaintiff,
v.
Jet Midwest, Inc., Defendants.

          ORDER

          JOHN T. MAUGHMER United States Magistrate Judge.

         On October 17, 2014, plaintiff Fabas Consulting International, Inc. (“Fabas”) filed the present federal litigation against defendant Jet Midwest, Inc. (“Jet Midwest”). According to the Complaint, Fabas, a Florida corporation, is in the business of dealing in new and used commercial aircraft parts for resale and lease to scheduled and regional commercial airlines in Latin America. Conversely, Jet Midwest is a supplier of used commercial aircraft parts and components, including aircraft engines, landing gear, wheels, brakes, auxiliary power units, windshields and thrust reversers. In May of 2014, Fabas paid $150, 000 for an auxiliary power unit[1] for one of its customers in Mexico. The Complaint alleges that the auxiliary power unit delivered to Mexico “was unserviceable and otherwise defective due to extensive contamination with sulfation, oxide, fungus and corrosion, and that the [auxiliary power unit] otherwise failed to meet the requirements of [Aviation Suppliers Association Quality System Standard] ASA100 and [Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular] FAA AC005.” Consequently, Fabas brought this suit against Jet Midwest alleging:

(a) fraudulent misrepresentation,
(b) negligent misrepresentation,
(c) breach of contract, and
(d) breach of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act [Fla. Stat. §§ 501.201, et seq.].

         In a prior order, the Court dismissed Fabas’ two misrepresentation claims as well as the claim for a violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Accordingly, Fabas’ breach of contract claim is the only viable claim remaining in this case.

         Following the completion of discovery and with trial approaching, the parties have filed motions for summary judgment with the Court. Specifically, Fabas seeks summary judgment in its favor on its remaining breach of contract claim [Doc. 58], while Jet Midwest seeks partial summary judgment as to any claim that Fabas may assert for lost profits [Doc. 62]. The Court will address each motion in turn.

         The underpinnings of Fabas’ motion for summary judgment are both simple and straightforward:

[T]he parties entered into a valid contract under which Fabas was required to pay the sum of $150, 020.00 to [Jet] for the purchase of a working auxiliary power unit. Fabas complied with its obligation to pay under the contract and paid [Jet Midwest] in full. However, [Jet] failed to deliver a working [auxiliary power unit] to Fabas.

         Jet Midwest does not dispute those basic facts, but notes that following the above-described events “Fabas and Jet Midwest subsequently agreed Fabas would return the [auxiliary power unit] in exchange for a full refund rather than for in-house credit as provided in Jet Midwest’s standard return policy.”

         Summary judgment in favor of a plaintiff is “rare.” Doud v. Toy Box Development Co., LLC, 2014 WL 11309685, op. at *17 (S.D. Iowa Mar. 31, 2014). Nonetheless, the legal standard under Rule 56 does not distinguish between plaintiffs and defendants:

A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense - or the part of each claim or defense - on which summary judgment is sought. The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (emphasis added). In this case, the Court concludes that Fabas has adequately and sufficiently established that there are no genuine disputes as to the material facts showing: (1) the existence and terms of a contract; (2) that Fabas performed or tendered performance pursuant to the contract; (3) breach of the contract by Jet Midwest. These are three of the four elements for a breach of contract ...


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.