On September 02, 2016 a
Complaint,Petition
was filed
involving a dispute between
Strom Aviation, Inc.,
and
Aviation Consulting Experts Inc,
J&J Robinson Ventures, L.L.C.,
Robinson Aircraft Interiors, Inc.,
Robinson, Jeffrey Wayne,
Robinson, Joe Wayne,
Wrolson, Daniel G,
for OTHER (CIVIL)
in the District Court of Dallas County.
Preview
FILED
DALLAS COUNTY
8/22/2019 4:46 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
Martin Reyes
CAUSE NO. DC-16-11118
STROM AVIATION, INC. § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiff,
V.
ROBINSON AIRCRAFT INTERIORS, INC.;
JEFFREY WAYNE ROBINSON; JOE
WAYNE ROBINSON; AND AVIATION
CONSULTING EXPERTS, INC.; J&J
ROBINSON VENTURES, LLC; JOSEPH W. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
PARK AND STACEY ROBINSON
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Defendants,
V.
ROBINSON AIRCRAFT INTERIORS, INC.
Third-Party Plaintiff,
V.
95TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DANIEL G. WROLSON
Third-Party Defendant.
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL
PETITION
Defendants, Robinson Aircraft Interiors, Inc. (“RAI”), Jeffery Wayne Robinson,
Joe Wayne Robinson, Aviation Consulting Experts, Inc. and J&J Robinson Ventures,
LLC (collectively “Defendants”) have filed their First Supplemental Petition against
Plaintiff, Strom Aviation, Inc. (“SAI”). In their Petition, Defendants have asserted
claims for breach of contract, specific performance and a request for a declaratory
judgment. SAI answers Defendants’ Petition as follows.
GENERAL DENIAL
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS’
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION PAGE 1
As is allowed by T.R.C.P. Rule 92, SAI generally denies all the claims set out in
Defendant’s First Supplemental Petition.
T.R.C.P. RULE ()4 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. Pattern of abusive conduct by RAI. SAI and RAI have been doing business together
for almost ten years. RAI is in the business 0f manufacturing and installing interior
components in aircraft. SAI supplies temporary labor t0 businesses in the aviation
industry. RAI has utilized SAI’s services in conducting its business.
Labor is the principle cost borne by RAI in conducting its business. Over the years,
RAI has repeatedly made misrepresentations and entered into various agreements
with SAI t0 obtain temporary workers with n0 intention 0f honoring its promise to
timely pay for them. Specifically, RAI has on numerous occasions misrepresented
the company’s finances, the ability of the company to pay its bills, as well as the
willingness 0f RAI t0 perform the various agreements it has entered into with SAI,
all while creating a parallel company t0 conduct a significant portion 0f RAI’s
former business free from the promises made to SAI and diverting significant sums
from RAI for the benefit of RAI’s principals and affiliates. A more detailed
description of RAI’s conduct in this regard is included in SAI’s supporting brief
filed contemporaneous with this Answer.
Fraudulent inducement. Defendants’ Supplemental Petition is premised on one
central, salient claim: that the June 20, 2019 Settlement Agreement (attached t0
the Petition as “Exhibit A”) is a valid and enforceable agreement. It is not.
SAI was induced t0 enter into the Settlement Agreement because RAI represented
that it was in a very poor financial condition, that RAI could not pay the debt it
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS’
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION PAGE 2
owed to SAI, but that it could and would make a $150,000 down-payment on 0r
before July 1, 2019 and then use future business prospects of RAI t0 pay its debt
over time. These representations were material; the representations were false 0r
were recklessly made without regard for their truth or falsity; and SAI reasonably
relied 0n the misrepresentations t0 its detriment. RAI’s conduct amounts to a fraud
which prevents the enforcement 0f the Settlement Agreement.
5. Equitable estoppel. RAI in its Petition seeks to enforce an agreement Which was
obtained by fraud and which RAI itself had no intention of fully honoring. RAI
must be estopped from enforcing an agreement obtained in this manner.
6. Regudiation. RAI immediately disregarded and breached its duties under the
Settlement Agreement. It failed t0 make the very first payment due under the
agreement; the $150,000 down payment. As set out in more detail in SAI’s
accompanying brief, this conduct has manifested itself repeatedly over the last ten
years. This pattern of conduct by RAI is ample evidence that it had n0 intention 0f
fully honoring its obligations under the Settlement Agreement and will not
perform the Settlement Agreement just as it had failed to perform any of its prior
agreements with SAI.
7. Declaratorv Judgment Statute. Pursuant to Section 37.004(a), SAI requests that
the parties’ rights and obligations under the Settlement Agreement be determined
by the Court. Specifically, SAI requests the Court determine that the Settlement
Agreement cannot be enforced because of the manner in which the Agreement was
obtained. Pursuant t0 Section 37.009, SAI also requests that it be awarded its
attorney’s fees.
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS’
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION PAGE 3
PRAYER
SAI requests the following relief.
1. That all the relief requested by Defendants in their First Supplemental Petition
be denied.
2. That the Court declare that the Settlement Agreement cannot and will not be
enforced.
3. That SAI obtain a judgment against the Defendants for its reasonable and
necessary attorney’s fees and costs.
4. That SAI obtain such other relief, both at law and in equity, to which it may
show itselfjustly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
GLAST, PHILLIPS & MURRAY, P.C.
By: /s/ Robert F. Maris
Robert F. Maris
State Bar No. 12986300
14801 Quorum Drive, Suite 500
Dallas, Texas75254-1449
972.419.8300
972.419.8329 facsimile
rmaris@gpm—1aw.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
STROM AVIATION, INC. AND
THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT
DANIEL G. WROLSON
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
In accordance with Texas Civil Procedure Rule 21a, I certify that I served the foregoing
document 0n August 22, 2019 on:
Jerry C. Alexander
Passman & Jones
1201 Elm Street, Suite 2500
Dallas, TX 75270
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS’
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION PAGE 4
VIA eSERVE
Steven E. Aldous
Forshey Prostok, LLP
500 Crescent Court Suite 240
Dallas, Texas 75201
VIA eSERVE /s/Robert F. Maris
Robert F. Maris
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS’
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION PAGE 5
Preview
FILED DALLAS COUNTY 8/22/2019 4:46 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK Martin Reyes CAUSE NO. DC-16-11118 STROM AVIATION, INC. § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, V. ROBINSON AIRCRAFT INTERIORS, INC.; JEFFREY WAYNE ROBINSON; JOE WAYNE ROBINSON; AND AVIATION CONSULTING EXPERTS, INC.; J&J ROBINSON VENTURES, LLC; JOSEPH W. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PARK AND STACEY ROBINSON mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Defendants, V. ROBINSON AIRCRAFT INTERIORS, INC. Third-Party Plaintiff, V. 95TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DANIEL G. WROLSON Third-Party Defendant. PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION Defendants, Robinson Aircraft Interiors, Inc. (“RAI”), Jeffery Wayne Robinson, Joe Wayne Robinson, Aviation Consulting Experts, Inc. and J&J Robinson Ventures, LLC (collectively “Defendants”) have filed their First Supplemental Petition against Plaintiff, Strom Aviation, Inc. (“SAI”). In their Petition, Defendants have asserted claims for breach of contract, specific performance and a request for a declaratory judgment. SAI answers Defendants’ Petition as follows. GENERAL DENIAL PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION PAGE 1 As is allowed by T.R.C.P. Rule 92, SAI generally denies all the claims set out in Defendant’s First Supplemental Petition. T.R.C.P. RULE ()4 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. Pattern of abusive conduct by RAI. SAI and RAI have been doing business together for almost ten years. RAI is in the business 0f manufacturing and installing interior components in aircraft. SAI supplies temporary labor t0 businesses in the aviation industry. RAI has utilized SAI’s services in conducting its business. Labor is the principle cost borne by RAI in conducting its business. Over the years, RAI has repeatedly made misrepresentations and entered into various agreements with SAI t0 obtain temporary workers with n0 intention 0f honoring its promise to timely pay for them. Specifically, RAI has on numerous occasions misrepresented the company’s finances, the ability of the company to pay its bills, as well as the willingness 0f RAI t0 perform the various agreements it has entered into with SAI, all while creating a parallel company t0 conduct a significant portion 0f RAI’s former business free from the promises made to SAI and diverting significant sums from RAI for the benefit of RAI’s principals and affiliates. A more detailed description of RAI’s conduct in this regard is included in SAI’s supporting brief filed contemporaneous with this Answer. Fraudulent inducement. Defendants’ Supplemental Petition is premised on one central, salient claim: that the June 20, 2019 Settlement Agreement (attached t0 the Petition as “Exhibit A”) is a valid and enforceable agreement. It is not. SAI was induced t0 enter into the Settlement Agreement because RAI represented that it was in a very poor financial condition, that RAI could not pay the debt it PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION PAGE 2 owed to SAI, but that it could and would make a $150,000 down-payment on 0r before July 1, 2019 and then use future business prospects of RAI t0 pay its debt over time. These representations were material; the representations were false 0r were recklessly made without regard for their truth or falsity; and SAI reasonably relied 0n the misrepresentations t0 its detriment. RAI’s conduct amounts to a fraud which prevents the enforcement 0f the Settlement Agreement. 5. Equitable estoppel. RAI in its Petition seeks to enforce an agreement Which was obtained by fraud and which RAI itself had no intention of fully honoring. RAI must be estopped from enforcing an agreement obtained in this manner. 6. Regudiation. RAI immediately disregarded and breached its duties under the Settlement Agreement. It failed t0 make the very first payment due under the agreement; the $150,000 down payment. As set out in more detail in SAI’s accompanying brief, this conduct has manifested itself repeatedly over the last ten years. This pattern of conduct by RAI is ample evidence that it had n0 intention 0f fully honoring its obligations under the Settlement Agreement and will not perform the Settlement Agreement just as it had failed to perform any of its prior agreements with SAI. 7. Declaratorv Judgment Statute. Pursuant to Section 37.004(a), SAI requests that the parties’ rights and obligations under the Settlement Agreement be determined by the Court. Specifically, SAI requests the Court determine that the Settlement Agreement cannot be enforced because of the manner in which the Agreement was obtained. Pursuant t0 Section 37.009, SAI also requests that it be awarded its attorney’s fees. PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION PAGE 3 PRAYER SAI requests the following relief. 1. That all the relief requested by Defendants in their First Supplemental Petition be denied. 2. That the Court declare that the Settlement Agreement cannot and will not be enforced. 3. That SAI obtain a judgment against the Defendants for its reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and costs. 4. That SAI obtain such other relief, both at law and in equity, to which it may show itselfjustly entitled. Respectfully submitted, GLAST, PHILLIPS & MURRAY, P.C. By: /s/ Robert F. Maris Robert F. Maris State Bar No. 12986300 14801 Quorum Drive, Suite 500 Dallas, Texas75254-1449 972.419.8300 972.419.8329 facsimile rmaris@gpm—1aw.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF STROM AVIATION, INC. AND THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT DANIEL G. WROLSON CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In accordance with Texas Civil Procedure Rule 21a, I certify that I served the foregoing document 0n August 22, 2019 on: Jerry C. Alexander Passman & Jones 1201 Elm Street, Suite 2500 Dallas, TX 75270 PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION PAGE 4 VIA eSERVE Steven E. Aldous Forshey Prostok, LLP 500 Crescent Court Suite 240 Dallas, Texas 75201 VIA eSERVE /s/Robert F. Maris Robert F. Maris PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION PAGE 5