1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X

LUFTHANSA CARGO AG, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

CARGO TOURS INTERNATIONAL, INC, 

Defendant. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

Civil Action No. 1:22cv-23574

COMPLAINT 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X

Plaintiff Lufthansa Cargo AG (“LCAG”), by and through its attorneys Condon & Forsyth 

LLP, hereby files this Complaint against Cargo Tours International, Inc. (“Cargo Tours”), and 

alleges as follows: 

THE PARTIES 

1. Plaintiff LCAG is a foreign corporation with its headquarters located at Frankfurt

Airport, Frankfurt, Germany 60546 and is also registered to conduct business in Florida. 

Plaintiff has locations and services customers throughout the State of Florida, and within this 

Judicial District including specifically at the Miami International Airport. 

2. Defendant Cargo Tours, at all times material hereto, was and is an organization

existing under the laws of the State of New York, is a foreign profit corporation registered to 

conduct business in the State of Florida, has a Principal Address located at 3405 NW 115th 

Avenue, Miami FL 33172, and does business throughout the State of Florida, including but not 

limited to Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

Case 1:22-cv-23574-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 1 of 8
2 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

3. This Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as there is

diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendant and the amount in controversy exceeds 

seventy-five thousand ($75,000) dollars, exclusive of costs, interest, and attorneys’ fees. 

4. The Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant Cargo Tours because

Cargo Tours has sufficient contacts with the State of Florida and breached the subject contracts 

in the State of Florida. 

5. Through its individual contacts, entering into contracts concerning cargo transit in

Florida, and generally conducting and doing business within the State of Florida, Cargo Tours is 

subject to the jurisdiction of the Court as the minimum contacts necessary to be expected to be 

haled to court in this District have been met. 

6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a

substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Miami, Florida, which 

is within the judicial district. 

COUNT I 

BREACH OF CONTRACT 

7. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 6 as though fully

set forth herein. 

8. Beginning in August 2020, the parties entered into a series of three Hard Block

Agreements (“The Hard Block Agreements”). 

9. A hard block agreement provides a shipper with guaranteed space on certain of an

air carrier’s flights at reduced rates. 

Case 1:22-cv-23574-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 2 of 8
3 

10. When a shipper and an air carrier are party to a hard block agreement, the air 

carrier cannot and does not assign the shipper’s guaranteed space to any other shipper, even if 

the shipper does not deliver cargo to the air carrier for delivery. 

11. The parties’ first Hard Block Agreement was dated August 11, 2020 and was 

valid between August 17, 2020, and October 24, 2020. 

12. The parties’ second Hard Block Agreement was dated September 29, 2020, and 

was valid between October 25, 2020, and December 31, 2020. 

13. The parties’ third Hard Block Agreement was dated December 10, 2020, and was 

valid between January 4, 2021, and February 17, 2021. 

14. The Hard Block Agreements consisted of a series of three contracts in which 

Plaintiff agreed to provide set amounts of space on flights for Cargo Tours to utilize per an 

agreed-upon fee schedule. 

15. Pursuant to the Hard Block Agreements, Plaintiff provided Cargo Tours 

guaranteed, discounted space on certain flights operated by Deutsche Lufthansa AG 

(“Lufthansa”). 

16. The Hard Block Agreements provided that Cargo Tours was responsible for 

payment for use of space on Lufthansa flights regardless of how much space it actually used with 

pricing based upon chargeable weight. 

17. Cargo Tours agreed to follow the terms set out in The Hard Block Agreements 

and the allotment details and time frames set forth in each respective agreement. 

18. Under the terms of The Hard Block Agreements, air-cargo transports would be 

carried out by Plaintiff with “predetermined volumes, destinations, and prices.” 

Case 1:22-cv-23574-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 3 of 8
4 

19. Pursuant to the section of the General Terms of The Hard Block Agreements 

entitled “Performance Standards,” Plaintiff agreed “to transport the contracted weight from the 

fixed places of departure, within the respective timeframes or, in case such are not available 

to/from the individual destinations, within the time agreed upon.” 

20. Pursuant to the General Terms of each Hard Block Agreement, “in the case of a 

change in the contracted tonnages, volumes and/or unit load devices for certain flight events (the 

change), [Cargo Tours] will immediately notify LCAG of this change... The notification of the 

change has to be in writing (preferably via email).” Furthermore, “[i]n order to be effective, 

changes of the HBA require execution in writing and signatures of both parties to the contract.” 

21. Pursuant to the Hard Block Agreements, Cargo Tours agreed to “comply with 

weight and volume agreed upon as well as the agreed density or, to the extent that the density has 

not been explicitly agreed upon, with the density resulting from the agreed weight and volume by 

way of calculation.” 

22. Pursuant to the Hard Block Agreements, Cargo Tours was required to make 

regular payments for the period of time as set forth therein. 

23. Between August 2020 and February 2021, Cargo Tours failed to make payments 

as required by the Hard Block Agreements. 

24. Cargo Tours breached the Hard Block Agreement by failing to provide payment 

in the amount of $10,980.00 for reserved space on a Lufthansa flight under Air Waybill number 

020-5791 8103 in August 2020. 

25. Cargo Tours breached the Hard Block Agreement by failing to make payment in 

the amount of $16,740.00 for reserved space on a Lufthansa flight under Air Waybill number 

020-5313 5762 in October 2020. 

Case 1:22-cv-23574-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 4 of 8
5 

26. Cargo Tours breached the Hard Block Agreement by failing to provide payment 

in the amount of $16,740.00 for reserved space on a Lufthansa flight under Air Waybill number 

020-5313 6661 in November 2020. 

27. Cargo Tours breached the Hard Block Agreement by failing to provide payment 

in the amount of $16,740.00 for reserved space on a Lufthansa flight under Air Waybill number 

020-5313 6672 in November 2020. 

28. Cargo Tours breached the Hard Block Agreement by failing to provide payment 

in the amount of $16,740.00 for reserved space on a Lufthansa flight under Air Waybill number 

020-6106 0020 in December 2020. 

29. Cargo Tours breached the Hard Block Agreement by failing to provide payment 

in the amount of $11,160 for reserved space on a Lufthansa flight under Air Waybill 020-6106 

0005 in January 2021. 

30. Cargo Tours breached the Hard Block Agreement by failing to provide payment 

in the amount of $11,160.00 for reserved space on a Lufthansa flight under Air Waybill number 

020-6136 1506 in February 2021. 

31. Under the terms of The Hard Block Agreements, Defendant was obligated to pay 

Plaintiff for the reserved space on Lufthansa flights. 

32. Plaintiff performed all conditions precedent as required under The Hard Block 

Agreements, except for any duties it was excused from performing. 

33. Defendant owes Plaintiff payment based on Plaintiff’s performance of the 

contracts, and Defendant is not excused from its duties. Plaintiff submitted its invoices to 

Defendant for services rendered between August 2020 and February 2021. 

Case 1:22-cv-23574-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 5 of 8
6 

34. Plaintiff has made several demands including numerous phone calls and sent 

several letters to Defendant about the outstanding payments. 

35. Defendant has continually refused to make the payments under the contract terms. 

36. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of contract, Plaintiff has 

suffered and will continue to suffer contractual damages, lost profits, and other damages in that 

Plaintiff turned away other cargo under the impression that its flights were full based on the 

terms of the Hard Block Agreements. 

37. By reason of the facts and circumstances above, Plaintiff has been damaged by 

Defendant in the sum of $100,260.00, together with any other relief the Court finds to be just and 

proper. 

COUNT II 

BREACH OF CONTRACT 

38. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 6 as though fully 

set forth herein. 

39. On February 15, 2021, the parties entered into a Single Capacity Agreement, 

pursuant to which Plaintiff agreed to transport a consignment on behalf of Cargo Tours on 

February 17, 2021. 

40. Pursuant to the terms of the Single Capacity Agreement, Plaintiff agreed to 

transport a consignment from Miami, Florida, to Shanghai, China, on Lufthansa flights LH 463 

and LH 8400, under Air Waybill 020-6136 1440. 

41. Pursuant to the terms of the Single Capacity Agreement, Defendant was required 

to make payment to Plaintiff in the amount of $20,520. 

42. Plaintiff performed all conditions precedent as required under the Single Capacity 

Agreement, except for any duties it was excused from performing. 

Case 1:22-cv-23574-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 6 of 8
7 

43. Defendant owes Plaintiff payment based on Plaintiff’s performance of the Single 

Capacity Agreement, and Defendant is not excused from its duties. Plaintiff submitted its 

invoices to Defendant for services rendered. 

44. Plaintiff has made several demands including numerous phone calls and sent 

several letters to Defendant about the outstanding payments. 

45. Defendant has continually refused to make the payments under the contract terms. 

46. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of contract, Plaintiff has 

suffered and will continue to suffer contractual damages, lost profits, and other damages. 

47. By reason of the facts and circumstances above, Plaintiff has been damaged by 

Defendant in the sum of $20,520, together with any other relief the Court finds to be just and 

proper. 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully asks this Court to enter judgment against Cargo 

Tours and its subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, servants, employees and all persons in active concert 

or participation with Cargo Tours for the breach of the contract as alleged including attorney’s 

fees and court costs. 

JURY DEMAND 

 Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues in this matter. 

Dated: November 2, 2022 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 CONDON & FORSYTH, LLP 

By: /s/ Lisa B. Heller

Lisa B. Heller, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 96658 

701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1550 

Case 1:22-cv-23574-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 7 of 8
8 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Tel: (305) 492-7303 

Fax: (212) 370-4453 

Email: lheller@condonlaw.com

 - and - 

CONDON & FORSYTH, LLP

Anthony U. Battista, Esq. 

(pro hac vice pending) 

7 Times Square Tower 

New York, New York 10036 

Tel: (212) 490-9100 

Fax: (212) 370-4453 

Email: abattista@condonlaw.com

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 LUFTHANSA CARGO AG 

Case 1:22-cv-23574-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 8 of 8