Inversiones Yv3343, S.A. V. Lynx Fbo Fort Lauderdale, Llc

Case Background

On January 26, 2021, Plaintiff Inversiones YV3343, S.A. filed a negligence lawsuit against Lynx FBO Fort Lauderdale, LLC. The Plaintiff alleged that Defendant’s breach of duty led to the theft of their corporate aircraft.

The case was filed in the United States District Court, Florida Southern. The case was assigned to Judge Roy K. Altman and referred to Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt. [Case number: 0:21cv60197]

Cause

Plaintiff Inversiones YV3343, S.A., is a foreign corporation that owned a Lear Gates Jet Model 51, serial number 51-013, registered as YV3343. The Defendant, Lynx FBO Fort Lauderdale, LLC, is a foreign corporation registered in Delaware.  Lynx provided fixed-base general aviation services at the Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport.

Under an agreement between the parties, Defendant was entrusted with the custody and care of the corporate jet for the benefit of Plaintiff. However, in early December 2020, while the jet was under Defendant’s care, Defendant allowed an unauthorized individual to access the aircraft, leading to its theft. This individual removed the jet from Defendant’s secure ramp, allegedly under the false belief that he had purchased it from Plaintiff.

Defendant failed to contact Plaintiff or its representative to verify the individual’s claims regarding the purchase. Moreover, Defendant allowed the individual access to the jet without any directive from Plaintiff, a court order, or any legitimate documentation to support the transaction. This failure to act responsibly and verify the situation resulted in the Plaintiff’s injury and loss.

As a result of Defendant’s failure to inquire and contact Plaintiff, an individual stole the corporate jet from its secure location while Defendant had its possession.

Damages

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3b, the Plaintiff requested a jury trial.

The Plaintiff asked the court to issue a final ruling in their favor. Specifically, the Plaintiff sought:

  •  at least $800,000 in damages;
  •  compensation for the loss of use of the aircraft, based on provided proof;
  •  payment for attorney’s fees and legal costs; and
  •  any other relief the court deemed fair and appropriate.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Inversiones YV3343, S.A.
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Lorenzo J. Palomares
  • Defendant(s): Lynx FBO Fort Lauderdale, LLC
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Glen Matthew Lindsay | Caitlin Jeannette Bronstein | Jeffrey Alan Cohen | Samuel Blake Spinner |

Claims

Plaintiff brought a single count of negligence against the Defendant. Plaintiff asserted that Defendant owed a duty of care to safeguard and secure the corporate jet for Plaintiff’s benefit. Defendant breached this duty by allowing an unknown individual to remove and take possession of the corporate jet. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff lost possession of the corporate jet and suffered damages.

Defense

Defendant claimed the aircraft was fraudulently removed from its premises due to a third-party’s actions, specifically Watson Aircraft Salvage Corporation. Watson provided documents to Defendant, falsely stating that the aircraft was deregistered and transferred to Hector Horquez, and then later sold to Watson. Defendant relied on these documents, believing them to be truthful, and took no further action to verify them. As a result, Defendant claimed that Plaintiff suffered damages based on this reliance.

Defendant further argued that there was no contractual relationship between itself and Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff’s negligence was the primary cause of the damages. Under the doctrine of comparative negligence, Defendant asserted that Plaintiff’s own actions contributed to the loss, and any recovery should be reduced accordingly. Moreover, Defendant pointed out that any negligence, if it occurred, was solely due to third parties not under Defendant’s control. Thus, Plaintiff could not recover damages from Defendant.

Additionally, Defendant claimed entitlement to set-offs for any payments made to Plaintiff from other sources. The Defendant insisted that the Plaintiff lacked substantial evidence to support her claim of damages.

Defendant argued that Plaintiff failed to include Watson, a necessary party whose fraudulent actions were central to the case. Without Watson’s inclusion in the lawsuit, the Defendant contended that the court could not provide complete relief. Finally, Defendant argued that Plaintiff failed to state a valid negligence claim, as Plaintiff had not provided the necessary facts to support such a claim.

Jury Verdict

On September 17, 2024, the jury found that Defendant Lynx was negligent, and this negligence was the direct cause of the damage to Plaintiff Inversiones. The measure of damages suffered by  Inversiones was estimated at $1,125,000 and Lynx was accordingly directed to pay the amount.

On the same day, Judge Roy K Altman passed a judgment consistent with the verdict. The judgment stated that Defendant shall pay Plaintiff $1,125,000.00 in damages.

Court Documents:

Available upon request