JETAIRE AEROSPACE, LLC

v.

AERSALE INC.

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres' Report and Recommendation on Counter-Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Report”). [ECF No. 398]. On February 5, 2024, Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Jetaire Aerospace, LLC, Jetaire Flight Systems, LLC, and Michael Williams (“Mr. Williams”) (collectively, “Jetaire”) filed their Amended Motion for Summary Judgment. [ECF No. 322].¹ Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff AerSale, Inc. ("AerSale") filed its Response on February 15, 2024. [ECF No. 335].² Both parties also provided supplemental briefing. [ECF Nos. 382, 390].³ On December 8, 2023, the case was referred to Judge

Torres for a ruling on all pretrial, non-dispositive matters, and for a report and recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 279].

Judge Torres issued his Report recommending that the Court grant summary judgment in favor of Jetaire as to Counts X and XI and dismiss, as moot, Counts VII–IX of the Fifth Amended Counterclaims. [ECF No. 398]. On May 31, 2024, AerSale filed its Objections to the Report ("Objections"). [ECF No. 406].4 Jetaire filed its Response on June 14, 2024. [ECF No. 410].5

A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections "pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F. 3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).

AerSale argues the Report errs in several ways, including: (1) by improperly concluding that federal patent law preempts AerSale's tort claims; (2) by misconstruing the arbitration panel's findings; (3) by applying the incorrect legal standard, and (4) by improperly concluding that a reasonable jury could not find, by clear and convincing evidence, that Jetaire acted in bad faith. This Court, having considered the Objections and conducted a de novo review of the record, agrees with Judge Torres' well-reasoned analysis and agrees that the Motion should be granted, in part.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

(1) Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff AerSale, Inc.'s Objections to Report and Recommendation on Counter-Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 406], are OVERRULED;

(2) Chief Magistrate Judge Torres' Report and Recommendation on Counter- Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 398], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference;

(3) Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Jetaire Aerospace, LLC, Jetaire Flight Systems, LLC, and Michael Williams' Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 322], is GRANTED, in part, as to Counts X and XI of the Fifth Amended Counterclaims, [ECF No. 376-1];

(4) Counts VII-IX of Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff AerSale, Inc.'s Fifth Amended Counterclaims, [ECF No. 376-1], are DISMISSED, as moot; and (5) In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, final judgment shall be entered separately. The parties shall submit a proposed final judgment within fourteen (14) days of this Order.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 4th day of September, 2024.

DARRIN P. GAYLES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

[fn 1]: Jetaire filed an unredacted, sealed version of its Motion for Summary Judgment. [ECF No. 324]. [fn 2]: AerSale filed an unredacted, sealed version of its Response. [ECF No. 339-1]. [fn 3]: Jetaire filed an unredacted, sealed version of its supplement, [ECF No. 383], as did AerSale, [ECF No. 393].

[fn 4]: AerSale filed an unredacted, sealed version of its Objections. [ECF No. 407-1]. [fn 5]: Jetaire filed an unredacted, sealed version of its Response to the Objections. [ECF No. 412].