Simmons v. Augusta Aviation, Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | CV 120-017 |
| Parties | Anthony SIMMONS, Plaintiff, v. AUGUSTA AVIATION, INC.; Daniel Gates; Chris Wilson; Coastal Air, Inc.; and Does 1-20, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia |
John K. Rezac, Reginald L. Snyder, Pro Hac Vice, Taylor English Duma, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff.
John C. Bell, Jr., Bell & Brigham, Augusta, GA, for Defendants Augusta Aviation, Inc., Chris Wilson, Daniel Gates, Coastal Air, Inc.
Before the Court is Defendants Daniel Gates ("Gates") and Coastal Air, Inc.’s ("CA") (collectively, the "Seller Defendants") motion for summary judgment (Doc. 62), Defendants Chris Wilson ("Wilson") and Augusta Aviation, Inc.’s ("AA") (collectively, the "Airport Defendants") motion for summary judgment (Doc. 66), Defendants’ motion to strike portions of Mark Baird's Affidavit (Doc. 82), Defendants’ motion to strike portions of Steve Loree's affidavit (Doc. 83), and the Airport Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff's first amended response to their motion for summary judgment (Doc. 84). For the following reasons, the summary judgment motions (Docs. 62, 66) are GRANTED, the motion to strike Plaintiff's first amended response (Doc. 84) is GRANTED, the motion to strike portion of Mr. Loree's Affidavit (Doc. 83) is GRANTED, and the motion to strike portions of Mr. Baird's Affidavit (Doc. 82) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Plaintiff originally filed suit in the Northern District of California, and the matter was transferred to this District on January 31, 2020. (Doc. 27.) After a few previous versions, Plaintiff filed his operative Second Amended Complaint on September 14, 2020. (2d Am. Compl., Doc. 55.) In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts seven claims for relief against the above-named Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts: (1) Rescission and Restitution; Alternatively, Revocation of Acceptance - Against CA and Gates; (2) Breach of Contract - Against CA and Gates; (3) Fraud - Against all Defendants; (4) Fraudulent Concealment - Against all Defendants; (5) Breach of Warranties - Against all Defendants; (6) Violation of Georgia Uniform Fair Trade and Deception Act - Against all Defendants; and (7) Violation of California Unfair Business Practices Act - Against all Defendants. (Id. at 11-33.)
Before providing an overview of the underlying facts, the Court must first address an issue regarding the statement of undisputed material facts ("SUMF"). For summary judgment motions, the Local Rules require:
Upon any motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in addition to the brief, there shall be annexed to the motion a separate, short, and concise statement of the material facts as to which it is contended there exists no genuine dispute to be tried as well as any conclusions of law thereof. Each statement of material fact shall be supported by a citation to the record. All material facts set forth in the statement required to be served by the moving party will be deemed to be admitted unless controverted by a statement served by the opposing party.
L.R. 56.1, SDGa. The Defendants argue their SUMF (Docs. 62-2, 66-2) should be deemed admitted because Plaintiff did not file a response to such. (Doc. 73, at 7; Doc. 80, at 4.) However, Plaintiff filed his own SUMF in response to both motions for summary judgment (Docs. 70-4; 76). While other districts, such as the Northern District of Georgia, require the opposing party to file an individually numbered response to the movant's SUMF, this District's Local Rules are not that explicit. As stated in Local Rule 56.1, facts are deemed admitted "unless controverted by a statement served by the opposing party." L.R. 56.1, SDGa. Ratchford v. F.D.I.C., No. 6:11-CV-107, 2013 WL 2285805, at *4 (S.D. Ga. May 23, 2013). Based on this holding, to the extent Plaintiff's SUMF and responses controvert Defendants’ SUMF, the Court will not deem Defendants’ SUMF admitted. However, if Plaintiff failed to controvert any aspects of Defendants’ SUMF, those facts will be deemed established as a matter of law. See id.
With that matter clarified, an overview of the underlying facts is as follows. In January 2018, Plaintiff, a California resident, contacted Defendant AA after seeing an online advertisement for a 1980 Piper Arrow aircraft (the "Aircraft") for sale. (2d Am. Compl., at 3.) Plaintiff spoke with Defendant Wilson who advised that the Aircraft was owned by Defendant Gates but had been maintained by Defendant AA since 2013 and was in great condition, airworthy, and safe for flight. (Id. at 3-4.) Defendant Wilson explained that Defendant AA would conduct an annual/pre-purchase inspection on the Aircraft prior to the completion of the sale. (Id. at 4.) After several conversations with Defendant Wilson and the acceptance of his offer by Defendant Gates, Plaintiff signed the Aircraft Purchase/Sales Agreement ("the Agreement") on January 26, 2018. (Doc. 1-1, at 5-7.) Defendant Wilson then sent an "updated" version which Plaintiff subsequently executed on January 30, 2018. (Id. at 2-4.) The only Parties to the Agreement were Defendant Gates and Plaintiff. (Id. )
Plaintiff represents he was never advised he could choose a facility other than Defendant AA to perform the pre-purchase inspection (2d. Am. Compl., at 4); however, the Agreement states (Doc. 1-1, at 3) (emphasis added). Therefore, "the contract provided for the airplane to have a fresh annual, that is an annual inspection conducted immediately prior to the sale" and "for the buyer to have a right to have the airplane inspected by a qualified aircraft maintenance firm." (Doc. 62-1, at 1.) Plaintiff consented to Defendant AA performing the inspection; however, he now states since he was an inexperienced aircraft purchaser, he did not know any better than to rely on Defendant AA. (Id.; 2d Am. Compl., at 5-6.)
Defendant AA completed an annual/pre-purchase inspection pursuant to the Agreement. (2d Am. Compl., at 7.) The inspection included the Aircraft's airframe, engine, and propeller and was made in accordance with the Federal Aviation Regulations ("FARs"). (Id. ) Based on the inspection, the Aircraft was approved as being in airworthy condition by Steven Gay, who holds a FAA inspection authorization. (Id. at 7-8; Gay Decl., Doc. 65, at 3.) In March 2018, Plaintiff traveled to Augusta, Georgia, met with Defendant Gates, and took possession of the Aircraft. (2d Am. Compl., at 8; Doc. 70, at 8.) Sometime after the purchase, Plaintiff discovered that the Bill of Sale filed with the FAA indicated Defendant CA owned the Aircraft and was listed as the "Seller." (Doc. 70, at 5.) Upon investigation, Plaintiff determined Defendant CA had forfeited its corporate status in Delaware and was administratively dissolved in Georgia. (Id. at 6.)
Plaintiff operated the Aircraft in the San Francisco Bay area for a year before it was due for its annual inspection. (Doc. 62-2, at 4.) When due, Plaintiff took the Aircraft to Mr. Baird, a FAA-certified mechanic, who found corrosion on the engine mount and the use of zip ties for hoses and ducts, which he believed rendered the Aircraft unairworthy. (Doc. 70, at 9.) Plaintiff then engaged Loree Air, Inc., a FAA-certified welding repair station to addresses the corrosion damage. (Id. ) Mr. Loree was of the opinion that the corrosion damage had been there for several years. (Id. )
Based on the annual inspection, Plaintiff's prior counsel, Mr. John T. Van Geffen, sent a demand letter to Mr. Gay, Defendant Wilson, Mr. Runnels, and Defendant Gates on May 31, 2019 (the "May 31, 2019 Letter"). (Doc. 62-3, at 21-23.) Whether this letter was actually received by the Defendants is subject to dispute. Nevertheless, the letter provided that there were issues with the Aircraft, alleged misrepresentations through the sale, and demanded "$25,000.00 to settle and resolve any and all outstanding claims." (Id. at 23.) Subsequently, Mr. Van Geffen exchanged emails with Mr. Bell, who was representing the Airport Defendants, from July through September of 2019 about repair costs and various totals Plaintiff was seeking for rescission. (Doc. 73, at 9-11.) Without reaching an agreement, Plaintiff filed suit in the Northern District of California on November 14, 2019 (Doc. 1) and it was transferred to this District on January 30, 2020 (Doc. 26).
Defendants move to strike portions of the affidavit of Mark Baird and the affidavit of Steve Loree. (Docs. 82, 83.) "An affidavit submitted in connection with a summary judgment motion is subject to a motion to strike if it does not meet the standards set forth in Federal Rule 56." Passmore v. Travelers Cas. and Surety Co., No. 2:19-CV-0059, 2020 WL 5880720, at *4 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 2, 2020) (citing Story v. Sunshine Foliage World, Inc., 120 F. Supp. 2d 1027, 1030 (M.D. Fla. 2000) ). Rule 56 provides: "[a]n affidavit or declaration used to ... oppose a motion must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c) (4). "If an affidavit ‘fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact’ by not complying with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial