Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01561/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01561-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

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]

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 60.) The Court

will deny the motion.

Plaintiff JetEx, LLC, owns a Cessna Citation 560 airplane, FAA registration number

N990JH, and Plaintiff Arch Insurance Company insured this airplane. The Court will refer

to JetEx and Arch Insurance collectively as “JetEx.”

Defendant Scottsdale Air Center (“SAC”) is a business operating at the Scottsdale

Municipal Airport. Among other things, SAC provides a hangar, staging area, and parking

for private jets. (Doc. 61 at 6.) This lawsuit is about damage to the airplane allegedly

inflicted while it was in SAC’s care.

The parties agree that, on November 7, 2008, a man named Jake Harouny flew JetEx’s

airplane from Salt Lake City to the Scottsdale Municipal Airport. Before that flight, Harouny

Case 2:09-cv-01561-NVW Document 77 Filed 12/15/10 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

had arranged for SAC to take care of the airplane during his stay in Arizona. Therefore,

when Harouny arrived in Scottsdale, he taxied to SAC’s facilities, shut off the engine, and

turned the airplane over to SAC. Certain SAC personnel then visually inspected the airplane

for damage. According to the inspection record, the only problem noted was a paint chip on

the left wing.

Sometime after this inspection, SAC towed the airplane to a parking location some

distance away from its main facilities. The next day, SAC towed the airplane to a hangar for

cleaning. Members of the cleaning crew found noticeable damage on the airplane’s left

wing. Photographs submitted by JetEx (the authenticity of which SAC does not dispute for

purposes of this motion) show that the left wing suffered two substantial scratches, running

parallel to each other from the wing’s leading edge along the underside. One scratch runs

all the way to the trailing edge and aileron. The other scratch does not seem to run that far,

but it appears to have left a noticeable gash about midway through its course. (See Docs. 66-

3, 66-4.) This damage rendered the plane no longer airworthy, requiring repairs paid for by

Arch Insurance.

JetEx claims that Harouny and others inspected the airplane before it left Salt Lake

City and noticed no damage at that time. Harouny also claims that he encountered nothing

at the Salt Lake City airport, in flight, or at the Scottsdale airport that could have caused such

damage. JetEx therefore sued SAC for negligent property damage (including through a res

ipsa loquitur theory) and for breach of an implied bailment-for-hire contract. JetEx has now

moved for summary judgment, seeking to

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

Case 2:09-cv-01561-NVW Document 77 Filed 12/15/10 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

As stated above, SAC conceded this issue for purposes of summary judgment, but 1

Plaintiffs apparently want the Court to rule on it for all purposes.

- 3 -

a bailment-for-hire relationship during the relevant time. SAC, however, offered evidence

that, a few weeks before Harouny flew the airplane to Scottsdale, he flew the airplane to an

airport in Mount Pleasant, Utah. That airport allegedly has a small parking ramp requiring

a tight turn, and surrounding the parking ramp are green-colored steel fence posts.

According to SAC, 

[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).

(Doc. 71 at 2 (citations omitted).) SAC also argued that, even absent this evidence, it had

raised a triable issue of fact through the testimony of its employees who were “‘very

adamant’ that they ‘didn’t damage this aircraft,’” mostly because they did not believe that

anything they did or any structures at the Scottsdale airport could have caused such damage.

(Id. at 3.)

In reply, JetEx conceded that SAC’s evidence from Mount Pleasant, Utah, raised a

triable issue of fact, but JetEx nonetheless asked this court to “streamline the trial” by

addressing whether there existed a bailment-for-hire between JetEx and SAC, and whether 1

SAC had met the degree of care required by the nature of the bailment. (Doc. 75 at 1.)

Focusing on the degree of care question, Plaintiffs argued that if a bailee returns the bailor’s

goods with damage that did not exist at the beginning of the bailment, the bailee must rebut

a strong presumption that its negligence caused the damage. JetEx then asserted, for

example, “All the evidence taken in the case shows that Harouny delivered the aircraft to

SAC in good condition and that the damage must have occurred during the bailment” (id. at

3), and “SAC has not provided a scintilla of evidence to show that the damage to the aircraft

Case 2:09-cv-01561-NVW Document 77 Filed 12/15/10 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

was due to some cause other than its own negligence” (id. at 4).

The problem with JetEx’sreply argument isthat (asJetEx conceded earlier in its brief)

SAC has provided more than “a scintilla of evidence to show that the damage to the aircraft

was due to some cause other than its own negligence.” Assuming SAC’s evidence shows

what SAC says it does — e.g., that Harouny visited the Mount Pleasant airport, that the

Mount Pleasant fence posts’ paint and profile match the damage on the airplane, and that

nothing at the Scottsdale airport fits the profile of the airplane damage — a reasonable jury

could believe it and conclude that the damage at issue happened before the airplane arrived

in Scottsdale. There would still be countervailing evidence — e.g., Harouney’s testimony

that he thoroughly inspected the airplane before the trip to Scottsdale, SAC’s arrival

inspection records showing no more than a paint chip on the left wing — but resolving that

conflict is the jury’s role. And if the jury resolves it in favor of SAC, then the entire question

of SAC’s duties as a bailee becomes moot. Therefore, the Court sees no usefulness in

deciding now, as a matter of law, whether SAC and JetEx had a bailment-for-hire

relationship, and if so, whether SAC has sufficient evidence to show that it fulfilled its duty

of care.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.

60) is DENIED.

DATED this 15th day of December 2010.

 /S/ 

JOHN W. SEDWICK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-01561-NVW Document 77 Filed 12/15/10 Page 4 of 4