In a written verdict that handed all three parties in contentious litigation a partial victory, Judge James Schum ruled JetAway cannot sell aircraft fuel and is required to meet minimum standards at the Montrose Regional Airport, which Schum found apply to off-airport businesses like JetAway’s.
JetAway submitted a competitive bid in 2005 to provide fixed-base operator services at Montrose Regional Airport. It services private jets on property adjacent to the airport, which it accesses for $250 per year under a contract inherited from the property’s previous tenants.
|
Advertisement |
The county claimed JetAway didn’t meet minimum standards and was in breach of contract. Jet Center Partners, meanwhile, said JetAway’s advertising misled the public into thinking it was an FBO and it had violated the state Consumer Protection Act.
Who was right? Everyone — to a degree, Schum’s ruling said.
He said the county could terminate JetAway’s land lease agreement because JetAway breached it by using the leased area for fixed-base operator services. He also found JetAway had trespassed by beginning ramp construction without the county’s written consent and said the relationship between airport and JetAway staff was “adversarial.”
But Schum also said JetAway had remedied its trespass by stopping construction when told to do so.
The ruling said the company could call itself an FBO, because the minimum standards “contain conflicting language” concerning fuel sales and the off-airport agreement is “ambiguous.” JetAway must make clear in any advertising that it cannot sell fuel.
JetAway is allowed to provide several services to jet traffic, subject to airport minimum standards.
Schum said JCP failed to prove JetAway engaged in deceptive or unfair trade practice that caused injury, while finding in JCP’s favor concerning unfair competition under the act.
The county was awarded nominal attorney’s fees of $1, after spending more than $300,000 to address JetAway’s claims.
Reactions were as mixed as the verdict.
“There’s nothing to celebrate until this matter is closed one way or another,” Commissioner Allan Belt said. “Sure, the decision in many ways was favorable to the county, but we’re not even at the main event yet.”
He referred to JetAway’s ongoing federal antitrust action against the county and its new complaint with the Federal Aviation Administration. (A 2006 FAA complaint was denied).
Belt said he hoped to avoid spending more public money on JetAway actions.
“What this kind of did was split the baby. They can still advertise as an FBO without fuel sales. The lease termination was a way to get them, by necessity, to pay a fair share. I’m certainly not happy about anything concerning this whole stinking mess,” he said.
JetAway CEO Stephen Stuhmer took the ruling as a victory.
“Judge Schum ruled JetAway is an FBO, has the right to call itself an FBO and can continue doing business as we have since we opened in 2004,” he said in a written statement.
He said the lease ruling had “no effect” on JetAway’s off-airport property, but the county had lost out on ramp fees JetAway was willing to pay, plus $3 million in improvements he said JetAway would’ve made.
“We knew we were right and we fought the establishment to prove it,” Stuhmer said.
Commissioner Bill Patterson’s view was that the county had won and the ruling was largely what he expected. “He (Schum) did disallow the lease. Basically, they can continue doing what they’re doing now. They cannot sell fuel,” he said.
“The way I see what really came out of it is we can now make them pay the same as any other tenant on the airport. That’s what we intend to do.”
Patterson said the only loss was the ruling on attorney’s fees.
Stuhmer said the county wasted public money trying to put JetAway out of business. “I think the taxpayers of Montrose County will find that offensive,” he wrote, singling out Patterson in particular.
Belt said that wasn’t accurate. “I say, look who’s bringing the suits. The county is defending itself. That tactic isn’t totally above-board.
“But we would love to have it stopped and not be spending taxpayer money defending lawsuits. We literally have no choice at this point.”
Stuhmer said JetAway was “ready, willing and able” to settle remaining litigation.
Jet Center Partner Kevin Egan disagreed with some of the court’s findings. “But the judge’s order does recognize a prohibition of services allowed on the off-airport site,” he said. “We prevailed on the unfair competition claim, which was positive.”
Jet Center Partners was granted injunctive relief on that claim because it needed only to show JetAway is “likely” to deceive and cause harm to JCP by diverting customers through its advertising concerning AvFuel products.
But its claims under the off airport agreement were denied because that agreement specifically bars third parties. Additionally, JCP didn’t prove it was injured by any deceptive trade practice on JetAway’s part — or even that JetAway realized any profits.
Egan said he did not know what kind of relief JCP could get on its successful claim. “It’s early and we’re still studying the judge’s order,” he said.
• 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!