In the filing, JetAway also accused Montrose County of civil rights violations for conspiracy to monopolize. It is seeking attorneys' fees, compensatory damages and an injunction that will permit the sale of aviation fuel.
JetAway operates adjacent to airport property under a "through the fence" agreement that prohibits fuel sales.
|
Advertisement |
Last week, the county announced mediation sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration had ended in November and there would be no more private negotiations. It previously came to light that negotiations included a land-swap arrangement that would put JetAway on-airport.
JetAway's federal complaint includes a copy of the proposed settlement agreement, dated March 8, and alleges the county failed to approve necessary documentation, which caused the FAA to halt mediation Nov. 19.
"It now appears this administrative proceeding is incapable of stopping (county's) illegal activities and that this lawsuit is JetAway's only adequate remedy," the filing reads.
JetAway's lengthy federal complaint alleges Montrose County undertook "improper and unlawful acts to establish a private monopoly FBO at Montrose Regional Airport and to prevent JetAway from having a fair opportunity to compete for the business of general aviation using the services of an FBO at the airport."
It specifically accuses the county, Montrose County Building Authority, Commissioner Bill Patterson, and Jet Center Partners of a conspiracy to restrain competition.
Patterson is the subject of ongoing recall efforts initiated by Al Head, a tenant at the JetAway property, and two other men, Mike Gordon and Joe Goecke.
Head's attorneys, Mark Haynes and Stefania Scott, are the same attorneys who filed the anti-trust suit.The suit contains some claims that are similar to those raised in the petition.
The filing laid the blame for a "pattern of litigation and administrative proceedings" at Patterson's feet.
It also claims the county and the MCBA illegally funded improvements to benefit JCP and complains of a "refusal to consummate a settlement agreement to permit competition reached in FAA mediation."
This, Haynes and Scott wrote, deprived JetAway of its opportunity to fairly compete and led to the loss of "millions of dollars" for the business.
Montrose County Attorney Bob Hill hadn't been served with the suit Wednesday and said he could not comment on it until he had a chance to examine it.
Patterson and fellow commissioners, Gary Ellis and Allan Belt, said the suit wasn't a surprise, although they had not seen it.
"We'll deal with it as it comes," Belt said. "I believe we've done everything we could to avoid being culpable for any kind of anti-trust suit."
"They were wrong in the beginning and they're still wrong," Patterson said. "We need to take our county back."
The county previously announced JetAway and Black Canyon agreed the week of Dec. 3 to operational changes concerning the parking and fueling of aircraft.
The anti-trust suit states the operational rules, which require JetAway to send planes to Black Canyon for fueling, "are intended to drive JetAway out of business." It also explicitly denies agreeing to the operational changes as they were laid forth in a Nov. 20 letter: "Contrary to the county's statements, JetAway was not consulted about this letter and agreed to nothing in it."
The new rules limit access to JetAway's hangar and restrict customers' ability to refuel, the suit says. An attached letter from Smooth Air, Inc. informs JetAway it is no longer practical to hangar aircraft at the facility "due to recent restrictions imposed...by Montrose County."
Without commenting on the suit itself, Hill said the Nov. 20 letter was modified. He claimed Steve Stuhmer objected to the designated fueling location for JetAway and said he would send craft over to Black Canyon.
JetAway has long contended the county gave Black Canyon a monopoly at the airport. However, it lost its Part 16 complaint filed with the FAA on that issue. The FAA's prohibition of exclusive agreements applies only to on-airport property. The county said previously Black Canyon was never given exclusive rights.
It also claimed JetAway does not meet minimum standards, but the suit points to the FAA ruling which states the county concluded JetAway had. JetAway additionally alleged Black Canyon isn't meeting all terms of its agreement.
Hill said that to his knowledge Black Canyon was in compliance. He also said the county never concluded JetAway met minimum standards. "That's one of the big mysteries we've had with the FAA's conclusion," he said. "The proposal did not adequately prohibit off-airport activities. That was always at issue with the county. The (FAA) director said we had legitimate concerns in that regard."
Stuhmer said he would comment only if the Daily Press agreed to print a written statement as-is, apparently prior to viewing the statement, which publisher Stephen Woody declined.
• Be respectful of others, the writer and the subjects in the story.
• Be relevant. Keep your comments on point.
• See the guidelines for TalkAbout. Perhaps your comment is best for that community forum, available from the home page, instead of commenting on a particular story.
Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All readers comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. Montrose Press is not liable for messages from third parties.
DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
* Comments unrelated to the story.
Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in montrosepress.com's reader comments represent the individual's own views and not necessarily those of the Montrose Press. Montrose Press does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than authorized Montrose Press spokespersons.
Thank you for your comments!