In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell Book
BBC - Honduras - CIA Trial Book - NY Mag

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Nov 5 – An airplane grounded in China has given rise to litigation in two countries. Jet Experts, LLC, affiliated with Dr. Bruce Gillis to transport transplant organs, has sued v. Asian Pacific Aviation Limited and TVPX Aircraft Solutions.  

On August 12, 2022 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Louis L. Stanton held an in-person proceeding. Inner City Press went and covered it. 

  The defense said it is difficult to understand the ligitation in China, that there is no provision to get the papers in the docket, even as a party. Denton's has been hired, but the plaintiff is using another firm, the Zhong Lun Law Firm.

The case there is in the Intermediate People's Court of Hangzhou City. Judge Stanton said he has read all of the papers submitted to him, except those in Chinese.

On August 18, Judge Stanton ordered "that: 1. Defendant TVPX, which is currently represented by Chinese litigation counsel of its choosing, must: A. Immediately appear in the Chinese Action through counsel and engage in all best efforts to correct any omissions and errors in the Court's records, including, without limitation, providing the Court with: ( i) an accurate translation of the entire Trust Agreement, especially clauses 8.01 and 8.02 concerning the ownership of trust property and the right to transfer which are omitted from the Chinese translation filed by Asian Pacific; (ii) copies of Plaintiff Jet Experts' complaint in the US Action, all temporary restraining orders issued by this Court, this Court's May 4, 2022 Order and Judgment, and July 14, 2022 Order; (iii) the Second Circuit's Order denying Defendants' emergency stay motion; and (iv) (Dkt. 58-1) Wang Ling's April 19, 2022 Declaration in support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, (Dkt. 58-3) Guodong Chen's April 19, 2022 Declaration in support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and (Dkt. 61) Defendants' April 20, 2022 Letter to the Court. B. Show to the Chinese Court: (i) That it is the owner and legal title holder of the Aircraft, with the sole right to pledge the Aircraft as collateral, which it has never done; (ii) The absence of any relationship,agreement, loan, pledge, or debt between TVPX and plaintiff Zhejiang; (iii) TVPX's duty to sell the Aircraft to Jet Experts, by contract and by order of this Court. C. Immediately appear in the Chinese Action through counsel and engage in all best efforts to seek emergency and permanent relief from the Chinese Court to vacate the seizure order on every legally plausible basis.The Court will address plaintiff's request for discovery from defendants and their counsel separately. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 8/18/2022)."

On August 22 Judge Stanton ordered, " On August 8 , 2022 , the Court orally directed Asian Pacific 's defense counsel to produce "all of the communications back and forth between your client and the [Chinese] court . All of the submissions to the court , all of their arguments to the court and all of the communications between the court and your client and between the plaintiff that action and your client . That should not be too hard to assemble ." Defense counsel replied , "I agree , your Honor ." (Tr . pp . 9- 10) . Counsel has not yet complied fully with that directive."

By November, with the case on appeal, Judge Stanton parsed what he as District Court judge can do at this point in the case, inviting a briefing schedule: "MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: [185] Letter filed by Jet Experts, LLC. ENDORSEMENT: The proper and timely filing of a notice of appeal being necessary to the Court of 108 F.2d 637 transfer jurisdiction from the district court to appeals, see, e.g., United Drug. Co. v. Helvering, (2d Cir. 1940) ("The general doctrine that courts are bound to refuse sua sponte to assume a jurisdiction not coferred upon them, applies as well to circuit courts of appeal as to the Supreme Court." Id. at 639), it has been described a "mandatory and jurisdictional." United States v. Robinson, 361 U. S. 220, 229 (1960). In this case, notices of appeal have been filed on May 9 and September 14, 2022, removing jurisdiction over it from this Court to the Court of Appeals, where briefing has already been completed (Collin 's Oct. 31, 2022 letter to Court at 1, Dkt. No. 187). There are few exceptions from the exclusivity of the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction. Plaintiff points to Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which says the district court may require appellant to post a bond "to ensure payment of costs on appeal" but does not mention attorneys' fees in either court or the "difference [claimed to be $6 million] between the aircraft's market price and the purchase price." (Vigna's Oct. 14, 2022 letter to Court at 4, Dkt. No. 184). This Court's Local Rule 54.2 deals with requirements that, to discourage" strike suits," a plaintiff may at the outset of an expensive litigation be required to post a bond for its prospective costs, not contemplating an application for a bond securing attorneys' fees before a final judgment determining liability has been reached. The analogy to a supersedeas bond is inapt. That bond secures the judgment in return for the successful plaintiff foregoing execution on it during the appeal. Here the Plaintiff is exerting every effort to enforce the Judgment. Plaintiff's claim for substantial interlocutory relief may be more appropriately directed to the Court of Appeals, which has unquestionable jurisdiction over this case. As directed to this Court at this time, they unavoidably involve at least the above issues of jurisdiction and procedure, which the parties are directed to brief as part of their submissions. On these terms, Plaintiff may dispense with the requirement of a pre-motion conference and make its motion. The parties are directed to set a briefing schedule to fully brief the matter. If that proves impossible, follow this Court's local civil rule 6.1. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 11/4/2022)."

 This case is Jet Experts, LLC v. Asian Pacific Aviation Limited et al., 22-cv-2426 (Stanton) 

***

Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2022 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com