Tuesday, just days after the local court granted Montrose County a temporary restraining order over JetAway’s alleged safety violations, the aviation business’ attorneys filed a motion to amend federal antitrust proceedings and specifically name Commissioners Allan Belt and Gary Ellis, as well as County Attorney Bob Hill as conspirators.
Commissioner Bill Patterson was already named in the antitrust suit.
|
Advertisement |
The antitrust suit contends the county violated JetAway’s civil rights and created a monopoly at the airport to benefit its competitor, Jet Center Partners, which does business as Black Canyon Jet Center.
In 2005, Black Canyon won a competitive bidding process to be the airport’s fixed-base operator, or FBO.
JetAway, which operates off-airport under a through-the-fence agreement, sued in local district court.
A June 30 ruling stated that while JetAway could call itself an FBO, its land lease was terminated and it was required to apply for an access permit. JetAway claims to have done so; the county claims the business must sign an application, not just a letter, and that JetAway must pay $75,000.
Attorney Mark Haynes said in his new federal motion Tuesday that JetAway obtained “additional information...which indicates that Messrs. Belt, Ellis and Hill are part of the conspiracy against JetAway to restrain trade and create a monopoly for fixed-base operator services at the Montrose Regional Airport.”
He reiterated previous arguments that the county had fabricated an airport layout plan and used that as evidence at trial in the local courts. Haynes wrote in the amended complaint that Belt, Ellis and Hill were “active participants” in the conspiracy.
The filing accused the county of re-litigating issues already ruled upon in hopes of shutting JetAway down.
“It has been a nonstop series of orchestrated attacks on JetAway, which JetAway now knows is being aided and facilitated by these individuals,” Haynes wrote.
He said the motion to amend JetAway’s complaint would not hamper proceedings already under stay and so, should be granted. The antitrust litigation was stayed at the county’s request, pending the Federal Aviation Administration’s decision on JetAway’s Part 16 complaint with that agency.
The amended antitrust complaint JetAway would like the federal court to accept states the commissioners engaged in a “pattern of litigation and administrative proceedings intended to prevent JetAway from competing against JCP/Black Canyon as an FBO” and of using the county’s regulatory powers to put JetAway out of business.
The complaint contends Ellis, Belt and Patterson all acted outside their scope and authority.
The county has consistently maintained it was JetAway that engaged in repeated lawsuits and said JetAway needed to comply with airport rules in order to do business on the airport.
Ellis on Tuesday refuted JetAway’s claims.
“They allege we conspired with JCP. Absolutely not,” he said. “We’ve always contended if certain conditions were met ... we would consider allowing them to be the second FBO, but those issues have never been fully addressed.”
Ellis cited the through-the-fence agreement, JetAway’s ability to meet minimum standards and whether the county would breach JCP’s contract.
“There’s been no conspiracy, either overtly or covertly. Unequivocally, no. We have not conspired,” Ellis said.
JetAway’s amended complaint asks the court to decree the defendants violated federal law, created a monopoly, conspired to monopolize and, while acting under the color of law, deprived JetAway of its rights of equal protection.
It wants triple compensatory damages from the commissioners and Black Canyon principals Kevin Egan and Jim Rumble; compensatory damages for alleged violations of the United States Code, attorney’s fees and any other relief the court deems proper.
• 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!