Noteworthy Decisions

Chien v. SkyPeople Fruit Juice Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94590 (D. Conn. 2009): obtained a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on behalf of Defendants in breach of contract matter.

Houraney v. Schley, et al., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18896 (S.D. FL 2009): defended New York based charter company in breach of contract matter, including defending against Plaintiff’s motion for default when Plaintiff failed to properly serve Defendants, subsequently obtaining a dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction.

Charity v. American Airlines, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93861 (D. Conn. 2008): defended against Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand where Plaintiff reduced his pre-suit demand (which exceeded the jurisdictional limits), to below the jurisdictional limits following removal. The District Court agreed and denied Plaintiff’s motion to remand holding “[a] demand letter may constitute ‘other paper’ providing grounds for removal.”

Aldana v. Air East Airways, et al., 477 F. Supp. 2d 489; 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18161 (D. Conn. 2007): In a case of first impression, the District of Connecticut granted Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and dismissed Plaintiffs’ common law negligence claims based on the preemptive implications of the Federal Aviation Act holding:

“Given that the preemption question is unsettled in this Circuit, the Court considers the contrasting rationales of French/Abdullah and Cleveland. As Congressional intent is the touchstone of any preemption analysis, the Court focuses on both the FAA’s overall purpose of uniformly regulating air safety as well as the ‘savings clause’ provision that the Act was only intended to add to existing common law remedies. After such consideration, this Court finds the Abdullah approach persuasive and agrees that “[t]he FAA and its corresponding regulations, in prescribing a standard of care of the safety of airline travel, has created an ‘overarching general standard of care,’ . . . [but] the plaintiff[s] may still seek state remedies for [their] injuries.” Shupert, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6214, at *19-20.”

Aldana v. Air East Management, Ltd, 2007 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 139; 237 N.Y.L.J. 13, (Suffolk County, 2007): Successfully advocated for the application of Connecticut Law to Plaintiffs’ claims which were time barred under Connecticut Law (but timely filed under New York’s Statute of Limitations) resulting in the Dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

Alfano v. Bridgeport Airport Services, Inc., 373 F. Supp. 2d 1; 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12128; 16 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1588; 2 Accom. Disabilities Dec. (CCH) 12-008 (D. Conn. 2005); Complaint dismissed at Alfano v. Bridgeport Airport Servs., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46790 (D. Conn., July 12, 2006): Defended FBO against former employee’s claims of sex, disability, race, and age discrimination. After denying the motion twice, the Court ultimately granted Defendants’ Third Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Elm Leaf, Inc. v. U.S. Specialty Insurance Company, 2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS 682 (J.D. Hartford, 2006): Defended insurer against Plaintiff’s claims for coverage, obtaining a favorable decision on a Motion to Strike.

Executive Aviation Services, Inc. v. Flightways of Long Island, Inc. 15 A.D.3d 611; 790 N.Y.S.2d 537; 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2055 (2nd Dept. 2005): briefed and argued on behalf of Defendant FBO for the reversal of the Trial Court’s decision to grant Plaintiff summary judgment in a breach of contract matter asserting diminution of value and loss of use claims arising out of damage sustained to Plaintiff’s Learjet.

Bridgeport Airport Services, Inc. v. Town of Stratford, 2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2185 (J.D. at Bridgeport, 2005) and 2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3565 (J.D. at Bridgeport, 2005): Commenced declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that the property was not taxable pursuant to C.G.S. § 12-74. Summary Judgment granted.

Mangini v. Cessna, 2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3387 (Complex Litigation Docket at Tolland, 2005): represented the aircraft owner in litigation arising out of the crash of a Cessna 172, obtaining a decision wherein the Court acknowledged that 49 U.S.C. § 44112 preempts state law and exempts owners of aircraft falling within the statute from liability.

Krystaltech International Inc. v. American International Freight, Inc. et al., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5442 (S.D.N.Y. 2000): Represented Defendant in a cargo loss matter successfully limiting liability to that set forth in the airway bill.

Nippon Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Skyway Freight Systems, Inc., et al., 235 F.3d 53; 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 31134 (2nd Cir. 2000): Obtained partial summary judgment limiting Defendant’s liability to that discussed in the airway bill and successfully defended that decision on appeal.

Ranger Insurance Co. v. Kovach, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18937, (D. Conn. 1999): Successfully represented insurer in a declaratory judgment action obtaining summary judgment decision wherein the court held that the policy was void as a result of the insured’s material misrepresentation on the policy application. The Court further awarded our insurer client costs and attorney’s fees.

Higgins v. Karp, 243 Conn. 495; 706 A.2d 1; 1998 Conn. LEXIS 3 (1997): Represented Defendant in litigation arising out of the April 12, 1993 crash of a Piper aircraft en route from Groton, Connecticut, to Cortland, New York, killing all three on board. The litigation involved unique procedural questions resulting in two appeals to the Connecticut Supreme Court.