United States of America v. Aircraft, Piper Cheyenne PA-42-1000, Bearing Tail Number N3SP, Serial Number 42-5527018, Including All Sets of Keys, Flight Logs and Maintenance Logs

Filing 27

OPINION and ORDER Denying Chase Air Inc.'s 22 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 14-11764
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.
AIRCRAFT, PIPER CHEYENNE
PA-421000, BEARING TAIL
NUMBER N3SP, SERIAL NUMBER
42-5527018, INCLUDING ALL SETS
OF KEYS, FLIGHT LOGS AND
MAITENANCE LOGS,
Defendant
CHASE AIR, INC.
Claimant.
__________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING CHASE AIR INC.’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 22]
This Court previously issued an Opinion and Order Denying the
Government’s Motion to Strike (ECF No. 16), regarding the same facts and legal
claims at issue in this motion for summary judgment currently before the Court,
brought by Claimant Chase Air Inc. (“Claimant”) against the Government pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (ECF No. 22.) The Court will not reiterate
the information set forth in that opinion, except as necessary to resolve the

1

summary judgment motion. For reasons to follow, the Court DENIES Claimant’s
motion for summary judgment.
I.
Summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 is
appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). The central inquiry is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient
disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one
party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 251-52 (1986). After adequate time for discovery and upon motion, Rule 56
mandates summary judgment against a party who fails to establish the existence of
an element essential to that party’s case and on which that party bears the burden
of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
The movant has the initial burden of showing “the absence of a genuine
issue of material fact.” Id. at 323. Once the movant meets this burden, the
“nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Electric Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475
U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To
demonstrate a genuine issue, the nonmoving party must present sufficient evidence

2

upon which a jury could reasonably find for that party; a “scintilla of evidence” is
insufficient. See Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 252.
“A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed” must
designate specifically the materials in the record supporting the assertion,
“including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or
declarations, stipulations, admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). The court must accept as true the non-movant’s evidence
and draw “all justifiable inferences” in the non-movant’s favor. See Liberty Lobby,
477 U.S. at 255.
II.
For purposes of the instant motion and responsive brief, both Claimant and
the Government incorporate by reference their briefings pertaining to the
Government’s motion to strike. (Claimant’s Mot., ECF No. 22 at Pg. ID 166;
Govt.’s Resp. Br., ECF No. 23 at Pg. ID 175.) Claimant asserts that there is no
“genuine dispute as to any material fact, which would enable [the] Government to
lawfully seize and/or forfeit [the aircraft] from the [aircraft’s] rightful and lawful
owner, Chase Air Inc.” (Claimant, ECF No. 22 at Pg. ID 165.) Regarding the
Government’s assertion – that since Charles Chase had submitted documents to the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) containing materially false statements,
Claimant does not properly own the aircraft and forfeiture of the aircraft was

3

warranted – Claimant contends that the affidavit it provided in response to the
motion to strike demonstrates that Charles Chase was a member of A&E, made no
materially false statement, forfeiture was unwarranted, and that accordingly,
summary judgment is proper. (Id.) The Court disagrees.
The Government claims that it seized the aircraft properly under 49 U.S.C. §
46306 et seq. (Govt.’s Resp. Br., ECF No. 23 at Pg. ID 175; ECF No. 16 at Pg. ID
77.) The statute holds the following, in relevant part:
(d) Seizure and forfeiture.
(1) The Administrator of Drug Enforcement or the Commissioner of
Customs may seize and forfeit under the customs laws an aircraft
whose use is related to a violation of subsection (b) of this section, or
to aid or facilitate a violation, regardless of whether a person is
charged with the violation.
(2) An aircraft's use is presumed to have been related to a violation of,
or to aid or facilitate a violation of-(C) subsection (b)(4) of this section if-(i) the aircraft is registered to a false or fictitious person; or
(ii) the application form used to obtain the aircraft certificate of
registration contains a material false statement;
49 U.S.C. §§ 46306(d)(2)(C)(i) and (ii).
The Government claims that Charles Chase submitted specific documents to
the FAA for registration of the aircraft on behalf of the FAA. (ECF No. 16 at Pg.
ID 76–77.) The Government asserts that according to the Delaware Registry
Limited Order Form (“Delaware Form”) (ECF No. 16-2 at Pg. ID 92), Steven and
Erica Plomaritis are listed as the members of A&E, and that despite this being so,
in an effort to register the aircraft for A&E, Charles Chase listed himself as a
4

member on each of the following forms submitted to the FAA: (1) an Aircraft
Registration Application 8050-1 (ECF No. 16-4); (2) a “Statement in support of
registration of a United States Civil Aircraft in the name of a limited liability
company” (ECF No. 16-5); and (3) an 8130-6 Application for U.S. Airworthiness
Certificate Form (ECF No. 16-6). (ECF No. 16 at Pg. ID 76–77.) The Government
asserts that in listing himself as a member on forms submitted to the FAA on
behalf of A&E, Charles Chase made materially false statements warranting
forfeiture of the Aircraft. (Id. at Pg. Id. 77.)
In response to this assertion, Claimant argues that the Delaware Form lists
Steven and Erica Plomaritis as the initial members of A&E; and that Delaware
requires no further filings should additional members be added in the future. (ECF
No. 17 at Pg. ID 143.) Claimant then filed an affidavit from Steven Plomaritis in
which Mr. Plomaritis states the following:
After our initial filing with A&E Leasing, LLC, with the State of
Delaware, but before the purchase of the [a]ircraft, Charles Chase was
made a member of A&E Leasing, LLC, so that he could handle the
paperwork transactions in obtaining the Piper Cheyenne.
(Steven Plomaritis Aff., ECF No. 18 at Pg. ID 151.)
Claimant asserts that this Affidavit supports the assertion that at the time
Charles Chase submitted the documentation to the FAA on behalf of A&E, Charles
Chase was a member of A&E, and thus, no materially false statements were made
when submitting the documents. (Claimant’s Mot., ECF No. 22 at Pg. ID 166.)
5

Claimant further contends that accordingly, it properly owns the aircraft and that
forfeiture was not warranted. (Id. at Pg. ID 164–65.)
The Court finds that Claimant movant has failed to show that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Claimant has provided insufficient documentation for the Court to
make a determination as to whether Charles Chase is a member of A&E and if he
was a member of A&E at the time he submitted the documents to the FAA.
Claimant has provided no official documentation from A&E demonstrating
Charles Chase’s change in status at the limited liability company, or any official
documentation from the limited liability company that demonstrates the actual date
said change in status occurred. This is significant, given that Charles Chase
submitted the documents in support of the initial purchase and registration of the
aircraft on behalf of A&E. Thus, if Charles Chase did in fact make materially false
statements when filing documents with the FAA, forfeiture of the aircraft would
have been warranted at the point in time Charles Chase submitted the documents to
the FAA on behalf of A&E, and any sale thereafter would be requisitely void.
Accordingly, there is a genuine dispute as to whether Claimant is an owner of the
aircraft.
Accordingly, for the aforementioned reasons, Claimant’s motion for

6

summary judgment (ECF No. 22) is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 31, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, March 31, 2016, by electronic and/or U.S.
First Class mail.
s/ Richard Loury
Case Manager

7