Dodson Aviation, Inc. vs. Orlando Padron, et al
Filing
75
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 69 Motion for Relief. See order for details. Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 8/24/2012. (aa)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
DODSON AVIATION, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 10-4036-JTM
ORLANDO PADRON, ET. AL.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes to the court on the defendants Orlando Padron, Javier Jorda, and HLMP
Aviation Corporation’s Motion for Relief From Order Granting Summary Judgment on Conversion
Claim, or in the Alternative, Motion for Order Allowing Interlocutory Appeal (Dkt. No. 69).1 The
defendants contend that this court violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 by granting Dodson’s Cross Motion
for Summary Judgment without allowing them an opportunity to respond, that Florida law rather
than Kansas law applies to the conversion claim, and that no conversion occurred under Florida law.
For the following reasons, the court grants the Motion. The court vacates its earlier Memorandum
and Order (Dkt. No. 68) and grants defendants until September 21, 2012, to file a response to
Dodson’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Dodson shall have until October 5, 2012,
to file its Reply. In addition to addressing the merits of the conversion claim, the parties should also
discuss the effect of the lien foreclosure suit on this case, if any, and the ongoing Florida case in light
1
Because the Tenth Circuit has dismissed the appeal of the lien foreclosure judgment, the defendants have
withdrawn their Motion for Order Allowing Interlocutory Appeal. See Dkt. No. 72, at 5.
of Younger v. Harris.
I. Factual Background
The parties and the court are well aware of the facts that form the basis of the parties’ dispute.
But the court will briefly summarize the procedural posture of the case as it relates to the present
Motion. On March 22, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions for
summary judgment. The court denied the defendants’ motion on the conversion claim “to the extent
the failure to return the property [was] unauthorized” after the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision in
Padron v. Lopez. See Dkt. No. 60, at 34. The defendants filed a renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment on Conversion Claim (Dkt. No. 62) presenting additional facts and Dodson responded and
filed a Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 65), also presenting additional facts.
After reviewing the Motions and the Response, the court determined that a Reply was unnecessary.
See Dkt. No. 66. The court proceeded to grant Dodson’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment on December 22, 2011. See Dkt. No. 68. In granting the Motion, the court analyzed the
Kansas Supreme Court’s decision in Padron v. Lopez and Kansas conversion law and concluded that
the defendants’ possession of the King Air after the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision in Padron on
November 25, 2009, constitutes a conversion. Dkt. No. 68, at 7.
There have also been developments in the related lien foreclosure suit, Dodson Aviation, Inc.
v. HLMP Aviation Corp., et at., No. 08-4102 (District of Kansas), and the Florida case Padron v.
Lopez, et al., No. 08-14466-CA-23 (Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County, Florida). On December
16, 2011, Judge K. Gary Sebelius entered an order in the lien foreclosure suit staying the execution
of its September 30, 2011, Judgment. The stay was to remain in effect until January 17, 2012,
2
pending an appeal of that judgment and provided that HLMP posted a $400,000 cash injunction bond
by that day. On December 28, 2011, the Florida court issued an order approving disbursements and
released the $400,000 injunction bond that had been posted as security in the event the court found
that Dodson was wrongfully enjoined by the Florida TRO. The Florida court released $300,000 of
the bond for use toward the supersedeas bond established by Judge Sebelius. The court ordered, in
pertinent part:
2. The purpose of the injunction has been met due to the finding of the Kansas Court
setting the lien amount and therefore this Court lifts the injunction.
3. The Court grants release of $300,000 from this court registry to be used toward
satisfying the lien in Kansas.
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue a check payable to the Clerk of the [U.S.
District Court in Kansas] in the amount of $300,000.
5. The Court retains jurisdiction over this cause and the parties for the purposes of
determining whether the injunction was wrongfully issued and whether Dodson
defendants suffered any damages.
Dkt. No. 72, Ex. 2. The $300,00 was deposited with this court on January 9, 2012, and HLMP paid
the remaining $100,000 on January 13. The parties agreed to dismiss their appeals in the lien
foreclosure suit and the Tenth Circuit dismissed the case on January 18. The parties also submitted
a joint motion with this court to direct the clerk to pay the full amount of Dodson’s judgment, with
interest, out of the $400,000 bond, which Judge Sebelius granted on January 19. The remaining
funds are being held pending taxation costs.
II. Discussion
D. Kan. R. 7.3(a) allows a party to seek reconsideration of a dispositive order under Rule
59(e) or 60. Rule 60(b) is “an extraordinary procedure permitting the court that entered judgment to
grant relief therefrom upon a showing of good cause within the rule.” Cessna Fin. Corp. v.
3
Bielenberg Masonry Contracting, Inc., 715 F.2d 1442, 1444 (10th Cir. 1983). Under Rule 60(b), the
court may relieve a party from an order for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered; . . . (3)
fraud . . . misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment
is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied . . . [or] it is based on an earlier judgment
that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable;
or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Id. The Rule is “not available to a party merely to reargue an issue previously addressed by the court
when the re-argument merely advances new arguments or supporting facts which were available for
presentation at the time of the original argument,” because this motion is not a substitute for an
appeal. Hillard v. Dist. Ct. of Comanche County, 100 F. App’x 816, 819 (10th Cir. 2004) (internal
quotations omitted).
A. Rule 56
First, the defendants contend that the court violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 by failing to provide
them an opportunity to respond to Dodson’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Although
Rule 56 does not specifically state that a party must be given an opportunity to respond to a motion
for summary judgment, it certainly contemplates that a party be given time to do so. Rule 56(c)
outlines the procedures for supporting and disputing factual assertions. Further, 56(f) provides that
a court may grant summary judgment independent of a motion, but only “[a]fter giving notice and
a reasonable time to respond.” Upon review of the court’s earlier decision, the court finds that it
should have given HLMP an opportunity to respond to Dodson’s Motion. Accordingly, the court
vacates its prior Memorandum and Order granting Dodson’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary
4
Judgment. The court grants defendants until September 21, 2012, to file a response to Dodson’s
Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Dodson shall have until October 5, 2012, to file its
Reply.
Because the court grants the Motion, it will not determine at this time which state’s law
applies to the conversion issue.
B. Subsequent Developments
Additionally, in their Reply, the defendants also contend that this court should vacate its
Order based on the developments in the lien foreclosure case because Dodson has now been paid all
the money it was owed. The defendants also urge the court to reevaluate its decision under Younger
v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 54 (1971) because the parties are currently involved in a Florida state case
regarding the validity of the TRO. In light of the court’s decision to vacate its previous Memorandum
and Order, this court also believes it is appropriate for the parties to address these issues.
IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this 24th day of August 2012, that defendants Orlando
Padron, Javier Jorda, and HLMP Aviation Corporation’s Motion for Relief From Order Granting
Summary Judgment on Conversion Claim, or in the Alternative, Motion for Order Allowing
Interlocutory Appeal (Dkt. No. 69) is granted.
5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court vacates its earlier Memorandum and Order (Dkt.
No. 68) and grants defendants until September 21, 2012, to file a Response to Dodson’s CrossMotion for Partial Summary Judgment. Dodson shall have until October 5, 2012, to file its Reply.
In addition to addressing the merits of the conversion claim, the parties should also discuss the effect
of the lien foreclosure suit on this case, if any, and the effect of the Florida case in light of Younger
v. Harris.
s/ J. Thomas Marten
J. THOMAS MARTEN, JUDGE
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?