13-3738-c v

Aircraft v. Oceanic UNITED STA TES COURT OF APPEA LS FOR THE SECOND C IRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER R U L I N G S B Y

S U M M A RY

O R D E R D O N O T

H A V EP R E C E D E N T I A LE F F E C T . C I T AT I O NT O A S U M M A RY

O R D E R F I L E DO NO R

A F T E R J A N U A RY 1, 2007I S P E R M I TT E DA N DI S G O V E R N E DB Y F E D E RA L R U L EO F A P P E L L AT E P R O C E D U R E 32.1 A N DT H I S C O U RT ' S L O C A L R U L E 32.1.1. W H E NC I T I N G A

S U M M A R

Y O R D E R I NA D O C U M E N T

F I L E DWI T HT H I S C O U RT , A P A RTY M U S T C I T EE I T H E R

T H E F E D E RA L A P P E N D I X O R A NE L E C T R O N I CD ATA B A S E ( WI T HT H E N O T AT I O N " S U M M A RY O R D E R "). A P A RTY

C I T I N G A

S U M M A R

Y O R D E R M U S T S E RVEA

C O P Y O F I T O NA N Y

P A RTY N O T RE P R E S E N T E DB Y

C O U N S E L . At a stat ed ter m of the Uni ted S tate s Court o f Appeals f or the Se cond Ci rcui t, held at t he Thu rg ood M arshall Uni ted S tate s Courtho use, 40 Foley S quare, in the City of New Yor k, on t he 9th day of O ctober, t wo thousand fourteen. PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL,

DENNY CHIN, SUS AN L. CARNEY,

Circ uit Judges

.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x A I RC R A F T S E R V I C E S R E S AL E S LLC, a Delaware company, 300 Corpo rat e Dri ve, S ui te 2, Mahwah, New J ersey 07430, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. 13-3738-c v O C E A N I C C A P I T AL C O M PA NY L I M I T E D, a Ni ger i an company, 19A A Adeola O deku, Vi ctor i a Island, Lagos, Ni ger i a, Defen dant-Appellant

.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -xFOR P L A I N T I F F -A P P E L L E E : J. D OU G L A S B AL D RI D G E (Bri an C. Dunni ng, Davi d N. Ci nott i, on the brief ), Venab le LLP, Washingto n, DC, and N ew Yor k, NY. FOR D E F E ND A N T -A P P E L L A N T : R OB E R T C. S E NT N E R

(Ni cole F. Mastr opieri, on the brief ), Ni xon Peabody LLP, New Yor k, NY. Appeal from the United Stat es Di stric t Co urt for the So uthern Di stric t of New York (Castel, J. ).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORD ERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that t he judgment o f the di stric t court i s AFFIRMED

.

Defendan t-appellant Oceani c Capi tal Company Lim i ted ("Oceani c") appeals f ro m the judgment o f the di stric t court enter ed Sept ember 4, 2013, awardi ng plai nti ff- appellee Ai rcraft S erv i ces Resal es LLC ("Ai rcraft S erv i ces") damages and prej udgment i ntere st tot ali ng $10,051,113.64. Fo llowi ng a bench tri al, the di stric t court fi led fi ndi ngs of fact and c onclus i ons of law on August 14, 2013, holdi ng that t he parties had orally e xte nded the closing date o f Oceani c's agreements to purchas e heli copter s from Aircraft Ser vic es. We ass ume the parties' f ami li arity wi th the facts, procedural hi stor y, and i ssu es for re view, whi ch w e briefly summ arize below.

In July 2008, the part i es executed three agr eements for Oceanicto purchas e from Aircraft Ser vic es heli copter s beari ng serial numb ers 760469, 760499, and 760512 (the "'469 Aircraft," "'499 Ai rcraft," and "'512 Aircraft"). The c losi ng date for the '512 Aircraft was ori gin ally July 31, 2008, and for the r emai ning two aircraft August 8, 2008. Pursu ant to the agr eements, any modi fi cati ons to t he agre ements were to be 2made "by an i nstrument i n wri tin g ex ecuted subsequ ent to the date her eof by

authorized representat i ves of both Part i es." On August 15, 2008, the par ties agr eed i n wri tin g to ext end the closi ng date o f the three agr eements to S eptember 5, 2008.

In Nov ember 2008, Oceani c cl osed on the '512 A i rcraft. O ceani c di d not close on the '469 or '499 Aircraft and on Septe mber 23, 2009, Ai rcraft S erv i ces b ro ught sui t for breach of contract. The di stric t court held that the par ties or ally modi fi ed the '469 and '499 agr eements to ex tend the closi ng date t o July 2009, that t he modi fi cati on

was en forceable, and that Oceani c breached the agreements by fai ling to purchas e the heli copter s. On appeal, Oceani c ch allenges the di stric t court 's rulings that the par ties modi fi ed their agreements to ext end the closi ng date and that Oceani c breached the agr eements i n Jul y 2009. We r eview the di stric t court 's fi ndi ngs of fact for clear er ro r and i ts conclu si ons of law de novo

. See Bessemer Tru st Co., N.A. v. Branin , 618 F.3d 76, 85 (2d Ci r. 2010). "We wi ll not upset a factual fi ndi ng unless we are left wi th the defi ni te and fi rm convic tion that a mi stake has been comm i tte d." White v. Whit e Rose Food, 237 F.3d 174, 178 (2d Ci r. 2001) (i nternal quot ation marks omi tte d).

Under New Yor k law, as a general matte r, a contr act contai ning a proscripti on agains t or al modi fi cati on cannot be changed "un less s uchexecutor y agr eement i s i n wri tin g and si gned by the par ty ag ai nst whom enf or cement . . . i s sought." N.Y. Gen. Obli g. Law § 15-301(1) . There are t wo exceptions to thi s rule. Fi rst,

3under the princ i ple of equi table estoppel, if "a party to a wr i tte n agree ment has i nduc ed another 's si gni fi cant and s ubs tantial reli ance up on an or al modi fi cati on," then the par ty may be estopped from invoking the bar on or al modi fi cati on. Rose v. Spa Realty Assocs. , 42 N.Y.2d 338, 344 (1977). Second, where there i s "partial perfor manc e of the o ral modi fi cati on sought t o be enforced," the r equi rement o f a wri tin g may be avo i ded. Id. at 343. To invoke equitable es toppel, t he parties' c onduct "mu st not o therwis e be compatible wi th the ag reement as written" and, for part i al perfor manc e, the part i es' conduc t must "be un equi vo cally referable to the or al modi fi cati on." Id . at 343-44. Here, the di stric t court held that both ex cepti ons appli ed.

We conclu de that t he di stric t court 's fi ndi ngs of facts w ere no t clearly

err oneous and that it correctly held that Aircraft Ser vic es and Oceani c made an enforceable modi fi cati on to the closi ng date o f thei r ag reements to July 2009. The followi ng evidenc e supports the dis tr i ct court's holdin g: On O ctober 8, 2008, O ceani c emai led Ai rcraft S erv i ces an d stated that Oceani c was "sorting out" the closi ng date for the re mai ni ng two helic opter s. J.A. at 693. In Nove mber 2008, Oceani c comm uni cated to A i rcraft S erv i ces i ts i ntent t o close i n early 2009, and paid an addi tional $152,500 as a goo d fai th deposi t appli cable to the cost of t he heli copter s. When the transacti on di d not close i n Janu ary 2009, the Chai rwoman of Oceani c's parent advis ed Ai rcraft S erv i ces that O ceani c was sti ll commi tte d to purchasi ng the aircraft and requested assi stance from Aircraft Ser vic es to fi nd fi nancing. At a meet i ng i n April 2009, Ocean i c ass ured

4Ai rcraft S erv i ces that "ever ything was on tr ack to close" inJuly 2009 and that Oceani c

was " fully comm i tte d to pr oceed and complete the tr ansac tion." J .A. at 357. Oceani c also acknowledged i n an internal email that "[Oceani c i s] c ontr actually obli gate d to put up the money and take deli ver y of t hese heli copter s" and that Oceani c "s hould go ahead and close thi s transacti on." J.A. at 779. In June 2009, Oceani c sen t Aircraft Ser vic es an "addi tional deposi t" of $500,000 to be appli ed to t he cost of the heli copter s. J.A. at 625. In the sprin g of 2009, Aircraft Se rv i ces traveled t o Lago s, Ni ger i a to disc uss modi fi cati ons to t he heli copter s wi th Oceani c operat i ons personnel. As a result of these

commu ni cati ons and the $152,500 and $500,000 deposi ts, Ai rcraft S erv i ces kept the heli copter s off the market.

On this basi s, the di stric t courtfound that Aircraft Ser vic es was i nduc ed by Oceani c's agreement t o ex tend the closi ng date and its ad di tional payments to keep the heli copter s off the market until Ju ly 2009. Thi s findi ng was not clear err or , and i t sati sfi es the standards i mposed by Rose

. * * *

We have consi dered O ceani c's remai ning arg uments an d fi nd them to be wi thout mer i t. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the j udgment of the dis tr i ct court. FOR THE COURT: Cather i ne O'Hagan Wo lfe, Clerk

5