PEGASUS AVIATION I, INC. AND PEGASUS AVIATION II, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
TRANSBRASIL S/A LINHAS AEREAS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Pegasus Aviation sought to repossess two Boeing 767 aircraft leased to Brazilian airline Transbrasil after the airline defaulted on lease payments. The trial court dissolved a replevin writ obtained in Miami and abated that action in favor of an earlier-filed repossession action in Brazil, and this appeal challenges that decision.
The trial court had discretion to abate the second-filed Miami action pending resolution of the first-filed Brazilian action and properly dissolved the writ of replevin to restore the status quo. The lease's provision allowing concurrent proceedings in multiple jurisdictions does not eliminate the court's discretionary authority to abate duplicate litigation.
[1] A trial court has discretion to abate a second-filed action pending the resolution of a first-filed action in a foreign jurisdiction.
[2] The existence of a prior pending action in a foreign jurisdiction does not preclude a party from filing a subsequent action in Florida, but it may be grounds for abatemen…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We conclude that the trial court had the discretion to abate Pegasus' second-filed Miami action pending the outcome of Pegasus' first-filed action in Brazil.”
Establishes the core holding that courts have discretionary authority to abate duplicate actions based on priority of filing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePegasus Aviation I and II own Boeing 767 aircraft leased to Transbrasil, a Brazilian airline. Transbrasil defaulted on lease payments. Pegasus filed a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Abatement Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, J.
Pegasus Aviation I, Inc. and Pegasus Aviation II, Inc., (collectively “Pegasus”) each own a Boeing 767 airliner which they have leased to defendant-appellee Trans-brasil, a Brazilian airline which flies passengers and cargo internationally. Trans-brasil has defaulted on its lease payments.
Pegasus brought suit in Brazil to repossess its aircraft. It obtained a preliminary order of repossession. The repossession order prohibited removal of the aircraft outside of Brazil.
The Brazilian appellate court issued a stay and ordered release of the aircraft to Transbrasil so that Transbrasil could continue using the aircraft on its airline routes pending resolution of the litigation. The court stated that the airline had posted real property as additional collateral. The Brazilian action remains pending.
Pegasus then filed a replevin complaint in Miami. It obtained an ex parte writ of replevin and seized one of the Boeing 767 aircraft at the Miami International Airport.
Transbrasil moved to dissolve the writ of replevin, because of the prior pending repossession action brought by Pegasus in Brazil for the same aircraft. The trial court dissolved the writ of replevin and returned the aircraft to Transbrasil. The trial court ruled that the Miami action would abate, pending resolution of the Brazilian action. Pegasus has appealed.1
We conclude that the trial court had the discretion to abate Pegasus’ second-filed Miami action pending the outcome of Pegasus’ first-filed action in Brazil. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya, S.A. v. Naiz S.A., 615 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Dissolving the Miami writ of replevin simply restored the status quo.
Pegasus points out that under the lease, it has a right “to bring proceedings against Lessee [Transbrasil] ... concurrently in more than one jurisdiction....” Pegasus states that it was thus entitled to file a replevin action in Miami, notwithstanding the existence of its earlier-filed action in Brazil. While that is true, the trial court nonetheless has the discretion to abate the second-filed action.
Pegasus argues that under Comcoa, Inc. v. Coe, 587 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), once it filed the replevin action it was the duty of the court to issue the prejudgment writ, notwithstanding the existence of the earlier-filed Brazilian action. Pegasus argues that the court was obligated to issue the writ and did not have any latitude to dissolve it.
We disagree with this analysis and conclude that Comcoa does not apply here. The Comcoa decision did not involve or address the question of priority of lawsuits. In ruling as it did, the trial court’s decision to dissolve the writ and abate the second-filed action followed well-settled principles of law.
Affirmed.
. Transbrasil returned the aircraft to Brazil. However, this appeal is not moot, because Transbrasil desires to continue using the aircraft on its Miami route until the controversy is resolved in Brazil.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Comcoa, Inc. v. The Honorable Jack M. COE, 587 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Banco Bilbao Vizcaya, S.A. v. Naiz, S.A., 615 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)