Case A545562: 4 Romeo Whiskey Vs Eagle Jet Aviation, Alex Penly Et Al.

r o e ; a on a t
COMP
Marquis & Aurbach
ALBERT G. MARQUIS, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 1919
ERIK W. FOX, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8804
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
(702)382-0711
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
FILED
Jui 31
4 26 PH '0
CLERK OF T H I COURT
DISTRICT COURT
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
8
9
10
4 ROMEO WHISKEY, LLC; a Nevada Limited

Liability Company, RUNNING WATER
MANAGEMENT, LLC; a Nevada Limited
Liability Company,
11
12
E
u
SO
oa
13
1
<
pa u S m
B5 > Q\
& /-s
j
D Q~ O
14
00
<n
eS3s ^
* $ >5
Sg z.lx.
f<
a- g .
C
/D
o^
, p
" o
>
i s
00
3 m
<
15
16
Case No:
Dept. No.:
Plaintiffs,
vs.
EAGLE JET AVIATION, INC., a Nevada
Corporation, ADVANCED AIR
MANAGEMENT, INC., a California
Corporation, STUART WARREN; an individual,
ALEXANDER PENLY; an individual, JOHN
KAYLOR; an individual, SCOTT CHIKAR; an
individual, DOES I through X; and ROE
CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive,
EXEMPT FROM ARBITRATION

DECLARATORY RELIEF REQUESTED
17
Defendants.
18
07A545562
ARCF
Archive COMPLETE FILE
830503
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, through the law firm of Marquis and Aurbach, allege and complain against
Defendants as follows:
THE PARTIES
1.
4 Romeo Whiskey, LLC, (4 Romeo Whiskey) owns a Leaijet Aircraft Model
55B, federal aviation number N73GP.

2.
Running Water, LLC, (Running Water) owns a Bombardier Challenger Cl-600-
2B16, federal aviation number N24IN.
Page 1 o f 8
M&A:00253-004 449274 1 7/31/2007 8:57 AM

3.
1
2
4.
5.
Stuart Warren (Warren) is a principal and employee o f Eagle Jet and Advanced
6.
Alexander Penly (Penly) is a principal and employee o f Eagle Jet.
7.
John Kay lor (Kaylor) is a principal o f Advanced Air.
8.
Scott Chikar (Chikar) is a principal o f Advanced Air.
10
9.
Eagle Jet, Advanced Air, Warren, Penly, Kaylor and Chikar are known
11
12
(702)382-0711 FAX: (702)382-5816
Advanced Air Management, Inc., (Advanced A ir) is a business that operates
and manages commercial charter and private charter aircraft.
M A R Q U IS & A U R BA C H
Eagle Jet Aviation, Inc., ("Eagle Jet) is a business that operates and manages
commercial charter and private charter aircraft.
3
4
Air.
collectively herein as Defendants.

10.
The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or
13
otherwise of the Defendants named herein as Roe Corporations I through X, and Does I through
14
X, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff at this time, who therefore sues said Defendants by
15
fictitious names and will ask leave o f the Court to amend this Complaint to show the true names
16
and capacities of Defendants when the same are ascertained; same Defendants are sued as
17
principals and/or agents, servants, attorneys, and employees o f said principals, and all the acts
18
performed by them were within the course and scope o f their authority and employment; Plaintiff
19
is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that each o f the said Defendants is legally
20
responsible in some manner for the events and happenings referred to herein, and directly and
21
proximately caused the damages and injuries to Plaintiff as hereinafter alleged.
22
23
THE LEAR JET MANAGEMENT AND LEASE AGREEMENTS

11.
On or about September 18, 2006,4 Romeo Whiskey, LLC, and Eagle Jet Aviation
24
executed
25
Agreements).
26
12.
an Aircraft Management Agreement and Lease
Agreement (the Lear Jet
Under the Lear Jet Agreements, 4 Romeo Whiskey agreed to lease and Eagle Jet
27
agreed to operate and manage a Leaijet Aircraft Model 55B, federal aviation number N73GP
28
(hereinafter Leaijet) for commercial charter purposes.

Page 2 o f 8
M&A:00253-004 449274 1 7/31/2007 8:57 AM
#
13.
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
Eagle Jet agreed to pay 4 Romeo Whiskey for use o f the Leaijet and provide a
regular accounting o f the commercial charter use o f the Leaijet.

14.
Eagle Jet has failed to pay sums due to 4 Romeo Whiskey under the Lear Jet
Agreements.
5
6
TH E C H A L LE N G E R M ANAGEM ENT AND LEA SE A G REEM EN TS

15.
On or about April 8, 2007, Running Water and Advanced Air executed an
Aircraft Management Agreement and Lease Agreement (the Challenger Agreements).

16.
Under the Challenger Agreements, Running Water agreed to lease and Advanced
Air agreed to operate and manage a Bombardier Challenger C1-600-2B16, federal aviation
number N241N (hereinafter Challenger) for commercial charter purposes.
17.
Advanced Air agreed to pay Running Water for use o f the Challenger and provide

(702)382-0711 FAX: (702)382-5816
M A R Q U IS & A U R B A C H
a regular accounting of the commercial charter use o f the Challenger.

18.
Advanced Air has failed to pay sums due to Running Water under the Challenger
Agreements.
BREACH O F C O N TR A C T
(F irst Cause of Action - The L ear Jet A greem ents)
19.
Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations hereinabove inclusively, as though
fully set forth herein, and incorporate the same by this reference.
iy
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20.
Eagle Jet and its principals agreed to lease, manage and operate the Lear Jet for
and on behalf o f 4 Romeo Whiskey.

21.
Eagle Jet agreed to fully compensate 4 Romeo Whiskey for its leasing o f the Lear
Jet to Eagle Jet.

22.
Eagle Jet breached the Lear Jet Agreement by failing to pay all sums due under
that agreement.
23.
4 Romeo Whiskey has at all times honored the terms o f the Lear Jet Agreement.
24.
All conditions precedent, if any, have been met by 4 Romeo Whiskey.
25.
Eagle Jet, its principals Warren and Penly, and each o f them, have breached the
Lear Jet Agreements.

Page 3 o f 8
'
M&A:00253-004 4 4 9 2 7 4 J 7/31/2007 8:57 AM
26.
proceedings as a direct and proximate result o f the conduct alleged above, and therefore,
Plaintiffs are entitled to attorney fees and costs as special damages.
27.
already incurred, and may incur in the future, a loss o f damages in an amount in excess o f
10, 000.
BREACH OF CONTRACT
(Second Cause of Action - The Challenger Agreements)
8
9
10
11
12
(702)382-0711 FAX: (702)382-5816
As a further direct and proximate result o f Defendants breaches, Plaintiffs have
Plaintiffs have been required to engage the services o f an attorney in these
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28.
29.
Advanced Air and its principals agreed to lease, manage and operate the
Challenger for and on behalf o f Running Water.

30.
Advanced Air agreed to fully compensate Running Water for its leasing o f the
Challenger to Advanced Air.

31.
Advanced Air breached the Challenger Agreement by failing to pay all sums due
under that agreement.

32.
Running Water has at all times honored the terms o f the Challenger Agreement.
33.
All conditions precedent, if any, have been met by Running Water.
34.
Advanced Air, its principals, and each o f them, have breached the Challenger
Agreements.
35.
Upon information and belief, the principals o f Advanced Air, Warren, Kaylor and
Chikar, are the alter egos of Advance Air.

36.
The individual principals o f Advanced Air conspired to commercially charter the
Challenger knowing that it was not properly certificated.

37.
The individual principals o f Advanced Air conspired to refuse the accounting that
Running Water was contractually entitled to,

38.
Plaintiffs have been required to engage the services o f an attorney in these
proceedings as a direct and proximate result o f the conduct alleged above, and therefore.
Page 4 o f 8
M&A:00253-004 449274 1 7/31/2007 8:57 AM

1
2
39.
As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants breaches, Plaintiffs have
already incurred, and may incur in the future, a loss of damages in an amount in excess o f
$ 10, 000.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
(702)382-0711 FAX: (702)382-5816
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
BREA CH O F IM PL IE D COVENANT O F GO O D FA ITH AND FA IR DEALING

(T hird Cause of Action)
40.
41.
26
Defendants, and each o f them, had an implied duty to deal with 4 Romeo
Whiskey and Running Water (collectively the Plaintiffs) in good faith.

42.
Defendants breached their duty to deal with the Plaintiffs in a fair manner and in
good faith under the agreements referenced inclusively above.

43.
Defendants and Plaintiffs enjoyed a special relationship o f trust.
44.
Defendants breached the special relationship o f trust.
45.
Plaintiffs have been required to engage the services of an attorney in these
proceedings as a direct and proximate result o f the conduct alleged above, and therefore.
46.
As a further direct and proximate result o f Defendants breach, Plaintiffs have
already incurred, and may incur in the future, a loss of damages in an amount in excess of
$ 10, 000.
47.
Defendants maliciously, with conscious disregard or indifference to consequence,
or with oppression, breached their duties to the Plaintiffs who are, therefore, entitled to punitive
damages in an amount to be determined at the time o f trial in this matter.
CO N STRU CTIV E TRUST
(F ourth Cause of Action)
24
25
48.
Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations hereinabove inclusively, as set forth
fully herein, and incorporates the same by reference.
27
28
Page 5 o f 8
M&A:00253-004 4 4 9 2 7 4 J 7 /3m 007 8:57 AM
#
1
2
3
4
5
trust with the Plaintiffs.

50.
Defendants have taken or have attempted to retain sums due under the Lear Jet
and Challenger Agreements, which in all fairness, belongs to the Plaintiffs.

51.
The Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration from the Court that Defendants, and
each o f them, to the extent that they hold an interest in the business expectancy, hold the same in
constructive trust for the Plaintiffs.
10
11
12
(702)382-0711 FAX: (702)382-5816
Defendants maintained a fiduciary confidential relationship and one o f special
49.
52.
As a direct and proximate result o f the aforesaid acts, it has become necessary for
Plaintiffs to secure the services o f an attorney, and Plaintiffs are entitled to recover fees and costs
incurred herein as damages.
53.
As a direct and proximate cause o f Defendants breach. Plaintiffs have been
damaged in excess o f $10,000, plus interest thereon, in an amount to be determined at trial.

ACCOUNTING
(Fifth Cause of Action)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
54.

55.
In view o f the discord between the parties, it is necessary that an accounting be
performed and the Plaintiffs receive all sums due under the Lear Jet and Challenger Agreements.
56.
Both the Lear Jet and Challenger Agreements mandate that the Defendants are to
provide the Plaintiffs with a regular accounting, an event that even though requested has not
occurred.
57.
A s a direct and proximate result o f the aforesaid acts, it has become necessary for
Plaintiff to secure the services o f an attorney, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover fees and costs
incurred herein as damages.
58.
As a direct and proximate cause o f Defendants breach. Plaintiff has been
damaged in excess of $10,000, plus interest thereon, in an amount to be determined at trial.
27
28
Page 6 o f 8
M&A:00253-004 449274_1 7/31/2007 8:57 AM
RECEIVER
(Sixth Cause of Action)
1
2
59.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

(702)382-0711 FAX: (702)382-5816
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

60.
Defendants have engaged in conduct designed to deprive the Plaintiffs o f their
rights and interests in the Lear Jet and Challenger Agreements.

61.
Defendants have also engaged in conduct that was designed to prevent the
Plaintiffs from receiving pertinent information relative to the operations o f the Lear Jet and
Challenger.
62.
Defendants have engaged in conduct designed to deprive the Plaintiffs o f their
rights and interests under the Lear Jet and Challenger Agreements.
63.
Defendants have also engaged in conduct that was designed to prevent the
Plaintiffs from receiving pertinent information relative to the operations o f the Lear Jet and
Challenger.
64.
Upon information and belief, Eagle Jet is suffering severe financial difficulty
stemming from inadequate management.

65.
As a result of the foregoing, the appointment o f a receiver is necessary to protect
the interest o f the Plaintiffs and achieve proper management o f the business entity, among other
things, preserving the status quo and preventing the loss o f assets.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the Defendants, and each o f them, as
follows:
1.
General and special damages in the amount o f excess in $10,000;
2.
A declaration that Defendants are in breach o f the respective Lease agreements;
3.
Damages for lost o f earnings and future loss o f earnings when the same have been
fully ascertained;
4.
Punitive damages in excess o f $ 10,000;
27
28
Page 7 o f 8
M&A:00253-004 449274 1 7/31/2007 8:57 AM
5.
Reasonable attorneys fees, costs o f suit incurred herein, plus interest; and
6.
Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper in the
3
4
5
premise.
Dated this
ay o f July, 2007.
MARQUIS & AURBACH
6
7
8
9
10
11
B,
g lu
A L te R T G . MARQUIS, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 1919
ERIK W. FOX, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8804

(702)382-0711 FAX: (702)382-5816
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 8 o f 8
M&A:00253-004 449274_1 7/30/2007 1:42 PM
IAFD
Marquis & Aurbach
Nevada Bar No. 1919
ERIK W. FOX, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8804
(702)382-0711
FILED
J ul 31
4 26 PH '07
CLERK fcf 7> F- COURT
DISTRICT COURT
Liability Company,
n
12
13
S
s
<
u.
in
rs
PS t3I- (0*0> 14
S
Pm O; jr?1
5 15
1 eoS
I-""
3 .. 15
cfi
H a- aMm
>o
a s sg
vs.
CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive.
18
20
21
22
23
3J
24
O
oo 0
t*
ro
oc
25
CD
CD
Dept. No.:
Plaintiffs,
17
19
4 5 5 6 2
Defendants.
<
16
Case No:
PLAINTIFFS* INITIAL APPEARANCE FEE DISCLOSURE

Pursuant to NRS Chapter 10, as amended by Senate Bill 106, filing fees are submitted for
parties appearing in the above entitled action as indicated below:
4 Romeo Whiskey, LLC (Plaintiff)
$148.00
Running Water Management, LLC (Plaintiff)
$30.00
27
28
Page 1 o f 2
M&A:00253-004 449399_1 7/30/2007 1:49 PM
7$
*
$178.00
TOTAL REMITTED:
Dated this
day o f July, 2007.

MARQUIS & AURBACH

(702)382-0711 FAX: (702)382-5816
M A R Q U IS & A URBACH

Nevada Bar No. 1919
ERIK W. FOX, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8804
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 2 o f 2
M&A:00253-004 449399 1 7/30/2007 1:49 PM
Electronically Filed
08/06/2007 02:38:10 PM
1
2
3
4
5
SUMM
Marquis & Aurbach
ALBERT G. MARQUIS,
Nevada Bar No. 1919
ERIK W. FOX, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8804
(702)382-0711
E-FILE LITE
^ORIGINAL
6
DISTRICT COURT
7
8
9
10

Liability Company,
11

(702)382-0711 FAX: (702)382-5816
M A R Q U IS & AURBACH
12
13
14
15
16
Case No: A545562

Dept. No.: XI
Plaintiffs,
vs.
17
Defendants.
18
SUMMONS - CIVIL
20
21
NOTICE! YOU HAVE BEEN SUED. THE COURT MAY DECIDE AGAINST YOU
WITHOUT YOUR BEING HEARD UNLESS YOU RESPOND WITHIN 20 DAYS.
READ THE INFORMATION BELOW.
22
EAGLE JET AVIATION, INC.

8363 W. Sunset Road, Suite 300
23
24
25
26
27
28
TO THE DEFENDANT(S): A civil Complaint has been filed by the Plaintiffs) against
you for the relief set forth in the Complaint.
I.
If you intend to defend this lawsuit, within 20 days after this Summons is served
on you, exclusive of the day of service, you must do the following:

(a)
File with the Clerk of this Court, whose address is shown below, a formal
Page 1 o f 2
M&A:00253-004 449972J 8/1/20072:53 PM
written response to the Complaint in accordance with the rules of the
Court, with the appropriate filing fee.
(b)
is shown below.
2.
Plaintiff(s) and failure to so respond will result in a judgment of default against you for the relief
demanded in the Complaint, which could result in the taking of money or property or other relief
requested in the Complaint.
10
3.
If you intend to seek the advice of an attorney in this matter, you should do so
promptly so that your response may be filed on time.
11

(702)382-0711 FAX: (702)382-5816
Unless you respond, your default will be entered upon application of the
MARQUIS & AURB ACH
Serve a copy of your response upon the attorney whose name and address
4.
The State of Nevada, its political subdivisions, agencies, officers, employees,
12
board members, commission members and legislators each have 45 days after service of this
13
Summons within which to file an Answer or other responsive pleading to the Complaint.
14
CHARLES J. SHORT
CLERK OF COURT
15
16
17
18
19
20
Issued at the direction of:
21
MARQUIS & AURBACH
22
23
24
25
26
27
By.
MARQUIS, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 1919
ERIK W. FOX, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8804
28
Page 2 o f 2
M&A:00253-004 449972 1 8/1/2007 2:53 PM
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
State of Nevada
County of Clark
District Court
Case Number. A545562 DEPT. XI
Plaintiff:
4 Romeo Whiskey, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; Running
Water Management, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company
vs.
Defendant:
Eagle Jet Aviation, Inc., a Nevada Corporation; Advanced Air
Management, Inc., a California Corporation; Stuart Warren; Alexander
Perily; John Kaylor; Scott Chikar
Received by AM:PM Legal Solutions on the 2nd day of August, 2007 at 3:46 pm to be served on EAGLE JET
AVIATION, INC. c/o Alan C. Sklar as Resident Agent at 8363 W. Sunset Rd Ste. 300, Las Vegas, NV 89113.
I, Stan McGrue, being duly sworn, depose and say that on the 3rd day of August, 2007 at 10:35 am, I:
served the within named individual or entity by delivering a true and correct copy of the Summons and Complaint
on the date and hour of service endorsed thereon by me to, Valentyme Garcia (Receptionist), pursuant to NRS
14.020 as a person of suitable age and discretion at the above address, which address is the address of the
resident agent as shown on the current certificate of designation filed with the Secretary of State.
I certify that at all times herein affiant was and is a citizen of the United States, over 18 years of age, not a party to
or interested in the proceeding in which this affidavit is made.
Subscribed and Sworn to before me on the 3rd day of

August, 2007.
AM:PM Legal Solutions
520 S. 7th St., Ste. B
Las Vegas, NV 89101
(702) 385-2676
P U B LIC
Our Job Serial Number: 2007002823

Ref: 233-4
rlgioal
1
2
3
4
5
08/13/2007 03:08:16 PM
SUMM
M arquis & Aurbach
E -F X L E L I T E
Nevada Bar No. 1919
ERIK W. FOX, ESQ.
ORIGINAL
Nevada Bar No. 8804
(702)382-0711
C0FTHE COURT
6
DISTRICT COURT
7
8
9
10

Liability Company,
12
8
13
<
aa
s
5a
<
_ nt r~r
jjV s
> iL
15
cn
o* a
HM x 3 ln
16
14
Dept. No.:
Plaintiffs,
Case No: _ $ 5 4 5 5 6 2
vs.
17
<
lJ
S
r*
Defendants.
18
19
SUM M ONS-CIVIL
20
NOTICE! YOU HAVE BEEN SUED. THE COURT MAY DECIDE AGAINST YOU
W ITHOUT YOUR BEING HEARD UNLESS YOU RESPOND W ITHIN 20 DAYS.
READ THE INFORMATION BELOW.
21
22
ADVANCED AIR MANAGEMENT, INC.

7100 Hayvenhurst Avenue, Suite 320
VanNuys, California 91406
23
24
25
26
27
28
TO THE DEFENDANTS): A civil Complaint has been filed by the Plaintiffs) against
you for the relief set forth in the Complaint.
1.
If you intend to defend this lawsuit, within 20 days after this Summons is served
on you, exclusive of the day of service, you must do the following:

(a)
File with the Clerk of this Court, whose address is shown below, a formal
Page 1 o f 2
M&A:00253-004449440_1 7/30/2007 1:S6PM
08/13/2008 01:12:07 PM
^ m
jB L U
'E
ORIGINAL
1
2
3
4
SAO
Albert Marquis, Esq., #1919
Erik W. Fox, Esq., #8804
Marquis & Aurbach
Las Vegas, NV 89145
Ph: 382-0711
Fax: 382-5816
DISTRICT COURT
8
9
4 ROMEO WHISKEY, LLC; a Nevada Limited )

)
)
Liability Company,
)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Plaintiffs
Case No.: A545562

Dept. No.: XI
vs.

Corporation, STUART WARREN; an
individual, ALEXANDER PENLY; an
individual, JOHN KAYLOR; an individual,
SCOTT CHIKAR; an individual, DOES I
through X; and ROE CORPORATIONS I
through X, inclusive,
j
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
STIPULATION AND ORDER

OF DISMISSALOF EAGLE
JET AVIATION, INC., STUART
WARREN, AND ALEXANDER
PENLY
_________________________ Defendants______ )
The undersigned hereby stipulate and agree that Eagle Jet Aviation, Inc., Stuart Warren,
and Alexander Penly are dismissed from this action with prejudice, each party to bear its own
attorney fees and costs. This Court retains jurisdiction over these parties with respect to any
future proceedings for enforcement of any arbitration award.
22
MARQUIS & AURBACH
23
24
25
26
Suvinder S. Ahluwalia, Esq., # 3944

8363 W. Sunset Rd, #300
Attorneys for Eagle Jet Aviation,
Stuart Warren, and Alexander Penly
Esq., #1919
27
THE ORDER IS ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE
28
JUDCG91NTENTERED
AUG 1 3 2008
CE-G3
1
2
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Eagle Jet Aviation, Stuart Warren, and Alexander Penly
are dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the stipulation on the preceding page.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2-
E-FBLE LITE08/23/2007 08:27:34 AM

/ \
CLERKOF THE COURT
ACSR
M arquis & A urbaeh
ALBERT G, MARQUIS, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 1919
ERIK W. FOX, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8804
(702) 382-0711
DISTRICT COURT
Liability Company,
AS45562
XI
Case No:
Dept. No.:
Plaintiffs,
vs.
KAYLOR; an individual. SCOTT CHIKAR; an
Defendants.
ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE
Suvinder S. Ahluwalia, Esq., hereby accepts service of the Complaint on behalf o f said
Defendants, Stuart Waire^, Alexander Penjy, John Kaylor and Scott Chikar.
Dated this
day o f
Suvinder S. Ahiuwaiia,
Page 1 o f 1
M<iA;Q0233-Q04 4503 S7_l &20/2OQ7 8:26 AM
08/14/2008 03:45:55 PM
2
3
4
5
NEOJ
M arquis & Aurbach
Nevada Bar No. 1919
ERIK W. FOX, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8804
(702)382-0711
CLERkjt>F THE COURT
6
DISTRICT COURT
7
8
9

Liability Company,
10
Case No:
Dept No.:
A545562
XI
Plaintiffs,
11
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
vs.
12
B
<
pa
13
< n
* ip
14
15
2-1=
is
g sai
I?
5 |? $
<
&

Corporation, STUART WARREN; an individual.
Defendants.
18
TO:
19
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that an Order was filed in the above-captioned matter on the
20
21
22
23
ALL INTERESTED PARTIES:
13th day of August, 2008, a copy of which is attached hereto.

Dated this
of August, 2008.
MARQUIS & AURBACH
By
Nevada Bar No. 1919
ERIK W. FOX, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8804
(702)382-0711
24
25
26
27
28
Page 1 of 2
M&A:00253-0(M 618734 1 8/13/2008 J;42 PM
#
CERTIFICATE OF FACSIMILE AND MAILING
I HEREBY CERTIFY, pursuant to NRCP 5(b) that on the
lay of August, 2008,
service of the foregoing, NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER, was made by sending a copy by
facsimile to the below fax numbers as well as by depositing a true and correct copy of the same,
enclosed in a sealed envelope upon which first class postage was fully pre-paid, in the U.S. Mail
at Las Vegas, Nevada, to the below addresses:

Suvinder S. Ahluwalia, Esq.
Sklar, Warren, Conway & Williams, LLP
FAX: 360-0000
Attorney for Eagle Jet Aviation, Inc.,
Stuart Warren, Alexander Penly
7
S
10
11

(702)382-0711 FAX: (702)382-5816
M ARQ U IS & AURBACH
12
13
and that there is a regular communication by mail between the place of mailing and the place(s)
so addressed.
14
15
An employee of Marquis & Aurbach
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 2 o f 2
M&A:00253-004 618734 1 8/13/2008 1:42 PM
08/13/2008 01:12:07 PM
SAO
Albert Marquis, Esq., # 1919
Erik W. Fox, Esq., 5 8804
Marquis & Aurbach
Las Vegas, NV 89145
Ph: 382-0711
Fax: 382-5816
CIERK0F THE COURT
DISTRICT COURT
Liability Company,
Case No.: A545562

Dept No.: XI
Plaintiffs
vs.
SCOTT CHKAR; an individual, DOES I
through X, inclusive.

OF D1SMISSALOF EAGLE
JET AVIATION, INC, STUART
PENLY
Defendants_____ )
and Alexander Pcnly are dismissed f r o m this action with prejudice, each party to bear its own
8363 W. Sunset Rd, #300


IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Eagle Jet Aviation, Stuart Warren, and Alexander Fenly
-2-
10001 Park Run Drive o Las Vegas, Nevada 89145

Phone (702) 382-0711 o Fax (702) 382-5816
VBIBM
W
H.
FAX NUMBER CALLING:
360-0000
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL FORM

TO:
Suvinder S. Ahluwalia, Esq* / Sklar, Warren, Conway & Williams, LLP
FROM
Erik W. Fox, Esq.
DATE:
August 13,2008
RE:
4 Romeo Whiskey, LLC v. Eagle Jet Aviation, Inc.
FILE NO.:
253-4
********4*
Message:
Description of Document FAXed:
Notice of Entry of Order
TOTAL PAGES _5_ (including cover sheet)

Please see that this facsimile is delivered immediately upon receipt If you do not receive
this facsimile properly, please call Krista at (702) 821-2410 immediately.
The information contained in this facsim ile message is privileged and confidential; it is intended onlyfo r the use o f
the recipient named above. I f the reader o f this message is not the intended recipient (or the employee or agent
responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying o f this communication is strictly prohibited. I f you have received this message in error, please immediately
notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. We
will be happy to reimburse you fo r any costs. Thank you.
Hard copy will follow.

MARQUIS & AURBACH FACSIMILE NO. (702) 382-5816
M&A-.00253-004 450761J 8/13/2008 1:58 PM
FAX
7023825
@001
*********************
***
TX REPORT
***
*********************
TRANSMISSION OK
TX/RX NO
RECIPIENT ADDRESS
DESTINATION ID
ST. TIME
TIME USE
PAGES SENT
RESULT
0641
163#253#4#3600000
0 8 /1 4 15:30
01'00
5
OK
MARCH ITS AVAURBACH

A T T O R N E Y S AT LAW
10001 Park Rim Drive o Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
Phone (702) 382-0711 o Fax (702) 382-5816
FAX NUMBER CALLING:
360-0000
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL FORM

TO:
Suvinder S. Ahluwalia, Esq. / Sklar, Warren, Conway & Williams, LLP
FROM
Erik W. Fox, Esq.
DATE:
August 13,2008
RE:
4 Romeo Whiskey, LLC v. Eagle Jet Aviation, Inc.
FILE NO.:
253-4
Message:
Description o f Document FAXed; Notice of Entry of Order

TOTAL PAGES 5 (including cover sheet)
Please see that this facsimile i$ delivered immediately upon receipt I f you do not receive
this facsimile properly, please call Krista at (702) 821-2410 immediately.
The Information contained in this facsim ile message is privileged and confidential; it is intended onlyfo r the use o f
the recipient named above. I f the reader o f this message is not the intended recipient (or the employee or agent
responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying o f this communication is strictly prohibited Jfyou have received this message in error; please immediately
notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service . We
w ill be happy to reimburse you fo r any costs. Thank you.
$
1
ORIGINAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
M OT
M arquis & A urbach
Nevada Bar No. 1919
ERIK W. FOX, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8804
Telephone: (702)382-0711
Facsimile: (702) 382-5816
amarquis@marquisaurbach.com
efox@marq uisaurbach.com
Ci
r i
^ Fob 10 2o9pf|'09
/
D ISTR IC T CO URT
CLA RK COUNTY, NEVADA
10
11

Liability Company,
Case No:
Dept. No.:
A545562
XI
12
Plaintiffs,
V
<
PQ
&
P
13
Date of Hearing:
vs.
pi rn
S oS'
<d
< sr
1. 3u.
g>_
HH w
2 >9
a - 3a
ps
<
jji
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ON
22

Time of Hearing:
MANAGEMENT, IN C , a California
Defendants.
PLA IN TIFF 4 R O M E O W H ISK EY . L L C S M O TIO N TO C O N FIR M A RBITRA TIO N
AW ARD AGAINST DEFENDANT EA G LE JE T AVIATION. INC. ON AN O R D ER
SH O RTENIN G T IM E
Plaintiff, 4 Romeo Whiskey, LLC, through the law firm o f Marquis & Aurbach, hereby
(XI
OJ
moves this Court for an Order Confirming Arbitration Award Against Defendant Eagle Jet
Page 1 o f 5
M&A:00253-004 738914_l 2/6/2009 8:24 AM
Aviation, Inc. on an Order Shortening Time. This Motion is based upon the following Points
and Authorities, all pleadings and papers on file herein, and any oral argument to be entertained
by this Court.
Dated this (__ day o f February, 2009.
MARQUIS & AURBACH
6
Bv
7
8
9
10
Q j- & p L C )
Nevada Bar No. 1919
ERIK W. FOX, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8804
11

(702)382-0711 FAX: (702)382-5816
M A R Q U IS & AU R BA C H
12
O RD ER SH O RTENIN G T IM E
13
Good cause appearing therefore,
14
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the time for hearing o f the above PLAINTIFF 4
15
ROMEO WHISKEY, LLCS MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD AGAINST
16
DEFENDANT EAGLE JET AVIATION, INC. ON AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME shall be
17
heard on the
18
Department XI.
day o f
2009, at the hour o f
:00
m., in
19
20
21
22
Respectively Submitted by:

MARQUIS & AURBACH
23
24
25
26
27
28
LJ ik i
By
l
ALBERT G. MARQUIS,
Nevada Bar No. 1919
ERIK W. FOX, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8804
Page 2 o f 5
M&A:00253-004 738914 1 2/6/2009 8:24 AM
AFFIDAVIT OF ERIK W. FOX, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF ORDER SHORTENING TIME
STATE OF NEVADA
County o f Clark
)
) ss:
)
ERIK W. FOX, ESQ., being first duly sworn upon his oath, deposes and says:
1.
This Affidavit is made in support o f the Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award
Against Defendant Eagle Jet Aviation, Inc. on an Order Shortening Time. I am an attorney with
the law firm o f Marquis & Aurbach and am duly licensed to practice law in all Courts in the
State o f Nevada.
"Romeo), in the above-referenced matter. The facts stated herein are true to the best o f my own
10
personal knowledge, except for those facts stated upon information and belief, and as to those
11
facts, I believe them to be true.
12
X
u
<
n
D
<
This law firm represents Plaintiff 4 Romeo Whiskey, LLC (hereinafter
2.
Romeo and Defendant, Eagle Jet, Inc., agreed to arbitrate their dispute.
3.
An award was issued in Romeos favor and against Eagle on December 4, 2008.
4.
The parties stipulated to permit this case to be reopened to confirm any arbitration
5.
There is an outstanding total arbitration award in the amount o f $127,299.74.
6.
To date, Eagle has not satisfied the award.
7.
An order shortening time is imperative, because if this matter were heard in the
award.
CD
19
20
21
22
23
normal course it would further delay Romeos collection rights and enforcement o f the award.
8.
Accordingly, Romeo requests a hearing date at the next available date after
February 16,2008.
9.
I declare under penalty o f perjury under the laws o f the United States that the
foregoing is true and correct.

u
24
25
26
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before

me this 1C)" day o f February, 2009.
27
28
NOTARY PUBLIC in and forr said)

County and State
Page 3 o f 5
M&A:00253-004 738914_1 2/6/2009 8:24 AM

(702)382-0711 FAX: (702)382-5816
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, 4 Romeo Whiskey, LLC, (hereinafter Romeo) and Defendant, Eagle Jet, Inc.,
(hereinafter Eagle) participated in an arbitration by agreement before arbitrator, Jay Earl
Smith.1 By stipulation, this Court dismissed the matter as to claims between Romeo and Eagle,
with the express option for either party to reopen the matter following arbitration to confirm the
award.2
On two separate days in October 2008, the arbitration was held. The Arbitrator issued his
award on December 4, 2008, awarding Romeo $79,848.02.3 Thereafter, Romeo moved for
10
attorney fees, costs and interest, and was awarded $47,451.72.4 Romeos total award is broken
11
down as follows:
12
1. Arbitration award in the amount o f $79,848.02,
13
2. Attorney Fees in the amount o f $38,000.00,
14
3. Costs in the amount o f $2,332.57,
15
4. Pre-judgment interest in the amount o f $7,119.15, and
16
5. Post-judgment interest at the rate o f $15.13 per day from December 4, 2008,
forward until the amount is satisfied.
17
18
Romeo moves for an Order Confirming Arbitration Award related to the award and
19
determination o f fees, costs and interest.
20
II.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
21
The Arbitrators Award and Determination should be confirmed. Where a party to an
22
arbitral proceeding receives notice o f an order, the party may make a motion to the Court for an
23
order confirming the award. NRS 38.239. Thereafter, the Court shall issue a confirming order
24
25
1 By agreement, the arbitration did not include other parties to this litigation, i.e., Running Water,
Advanced Air Management, Scott Chikar and John Kaylor.
26
2 See Stipulation and Order o f Dismissal, attached as Exhibit 1.
27
3 See Arbitration Award o f December 4, 2008, attached as Exhibit 2.
28
4 See Determination in Arbitration re: Attorneys Fees, Costs and Interest, attached as Exhibit 3.
Page 4 o f 5
M&A:00253-004 738914 1 2/6/2009 8:24 AM
unless the award is modified, corrected, or vacated. In this case, no motion has been made to
vacate or modify the decision o f the Arbitrator as provided by the Nevada Revised Statutes. As
such, Romeo requests this Court to confirm the Arbitration Award and Determination o f Fees,
Costs and Interest, attached hereto as Exhibits 2 and 3, respectively. Romeo seeks confirmation
o f the Arbitration Award in the amount of $127,299.74, plus post-judgment interest at the rate
$15.13 per day from December 4, 2008, as reflected in the proposed Order Conforming
Arbitration Award and Judgment.5
III.
Based on the foregoing, Romeo requests the Court to issue an Order Confirming
10
Arbitration Award and Determination with Judgment entered against Eagle Jet, Inc., in the
11
amount o f $127,299.74.

(702)382-0711 FAX: (702)382-5816
12
M A R Q U IS & AU R BA C H
CO NCLUSIO N
Dated thisIcP iav o f February, 2009.
13
MARQUIS & AURBACH
14
15
By
16
ALBERT T j . MARQUIS, ESQ.

Nevada Bar No. 1919
ERIK W. FOX, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No, 8804
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5 See Proposed Order Granting Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award and Judgment, attached as Exhibit
4.
Page 5 o f 5
M&A:00253-004 738914 1 2/6/2009 8:24 AM
08/13/2008 01:12:07 PM
1
2
3
4
5
SAO
Albert Marquis, Esq., # 1919
Erik W. Fox, Esq., i 8804
Marquis & Aurbach
Las Vegas, NV 89145
Ph: 382-0711
Fax: 382-5816
C L E R ltpF THE COURT
DISTRICT COURT
8
9
4 ROMEO WHISKEY, LLC; a Nevada Limited )

Liability Company,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Plaintiffs
Case No.: A545562

Dept. No.: XI
vs.
SCOTT CHIKAR; an individual, DOES I
through X, inclusive,

OF DISMISSALOF EAGLE
JET AVIATION, INC., STUART
PENLY
_______________________Defendants
19
and Alexander Penly are dismissed from this action with prejudice, each party to bear its own
20
21
22
SKLARfWl
MARQUIS & AURBACH
Suvinder S. Ahluwalia, Esq., # 3944

8363 W. Sunset Rd, #300
Albert GrMarquis, Esq., #1919

23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Eagle Jet Aviation, Stuart Warren, and Alexander Penly
received
Jay Earl Smith, Esq.

Nevada Bar No. 1182
SMITH LARSEN & WIXOM
1935 Village Center Circle
Tel: (702)252-5002
Fax: (702)252-5006
Arbitrator
DEC052008
MARQUIS & AURBACH
PRIVATE ARBITRATION
4 ROMEO WHISKEY, LLC,

a Nevada Limited Liability Company,
Plaintiff / Counterdefendant,
)
)
)
)
)
v.
EAGLE JET AVIATION, INC.,
a Nevada Corporation,
Defendant / Counterclaimant.
ARBITRATION AWARD
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
This matter came before the arbitrator for hearing on October 16 and 23, 2008 in
accordance with the parties* agreement and the provisions o f NRS Chapter 38. Plaintiff 4
Romeo Whiskey, LLC (herein,Romeo) was represented by its counsel, Albert G. Marquis,
Esq. and Erik W. Fox, Esq. Defendant and Counterclaimant Eagle Jet Aviation, Inc. (Eagle
Jet ) was represented by its counsel, Suvinder S. Ahluwalia. Closing briefs were submitted
by the parties on or about November 14, 2008. At the time o f the arbitration, the parties
stipulated that the dispute to be arbitrated would be between Romeo and Eagle Jet only, and
not the other parties originally named in this matter. Upon considering the pre-hearing
statements, the testimony o f parties and witnesses, the evidentiary submissions, the closing
briefs, and all matters submitted at arbitration, the arbitrator makes the following
determinations and award.
Background
Both parties suggest that the dispute between Romeo and Eagle Jet is a relatively
straight-forward matter o f contractual interpretation and accounting. Despite this premise,
and the fact that both parties considered essentially the same background information and
contracts, the matter is far from simple. Indeed, both parties nave prepared multiple
accountings, from time to time, with different results, In the end, Romeo claims it is owed
$ 156,967.94 from Eagle Jet, and seeks an award in that amount. Eagle Jet claims it is owed
$202,596.79 from Romeo, and seeks an award in that amount.
Romeo is a limited liability company whose members are comprised o f Randy Kidd
(Kidd), Robert VanOrstrand (VanOrstrand), and Stephen Aizenberg (Aizenberg).
Romeo wanted to buy a businessjet, and after seeking and receiving input from Milt Woods
(Woods), Romeo purchased a Leaijet 55B, Tail No. N73GP (the Learjet). At the time,
Woods was the president o f Eagle Jet, which provided charter aircraft services. Romeos
Learjet was to fly under Eagle Jets certificate.
Romeo desired to lease the Learjet to Eagle Jet to manage it and generate revenues
from charter flights. Kidd and Woods commenced negotiations over the terms o f the Leaijet
lease, and came to a basic understanding that Eagle Jet would get a 15% commission for all
charter flights. It was Kidds intent that the Learjet would be used primarily as a charter
aircraft, and occasionally for private flights by the members o f Romeo for which Eagle Jet
would receive no commissions.
The general concept o f theparties was for Eagle Jet to advertise, book, and charter the
Learjet for $2700 per hour. In effect. Eagle Jet was going to be paid 15% o f the hourly rate
paid by charter customers, plus certain charges. Essentially, after covering the commission
and certain expenses, Romeo was to receive the balance o f the revenues. The actual
application o f this basic concept is a matter o f significant dispute among the parties, and the
contracts are subject to differing interpretations oy the parties.
Per Kidd, there were discussions with Woods about the private flights, referred to as
the owner flights, and the fact that Romeo would pay the Agoing rate for purposes o f
record keeping, but because the flights were owner flights, and not third-party charter flights,
the funds would flow back to Romeo, less actual costs. From the revenues that were to be
paid to Romeo, Eagle Jet was to retain $100,000 on deposit to cover an estimated two
months worth o f expenses.
The parties operated under this informal arrangement for a few weeks, and around
September 2006 the arrangement was reduced to writing in the form o f a Lease Agreement
ana Aircraft Management Agreement.
These agreements were drafted by Stuart Warren (Warren), a California attorney
who had an interest in Eagle Jet. Warren did not represent Romeo in any legal capacity, but
it would appear that he was acting as counsel for Eagle Jet. Warren received a call
requesting that he provide forms for a lease agreement and management agreement for the
parties. While Warren was the primary drafter o f the agreements, Kiad reviewed the
proposed agreements and had some input into their content, making a few revisions on
matters covering costs and scheduling before the agreements were put into their final form
for execution. Warren, in effect, attempted to document the agreement that the parties had
reached and were operating under.
It was Warren's general understanding that Romeo was to be paid revenues based on
the number o f hours multiplied by the hourly rate ($2700)plus auxiliary service charges, and
after taking into account certain costs, 85% would go to Romeo and 15% would go to Eagle
Jet. Warren contends that matters relating to incidental expenses and taxes were not me
obligation o f Romeo, and that Romeo was not charged for incidental expenses.
The A greem ent
After the initial period o f working together without a written contract, the relationship
between Romeo and Eagle Jet became based on two contemporaneous agreements: (1) a
Lease Agreement and (2) an Aircraft Management Agreement. The two agreements refer
to one another throughout, and it is apparent that the parties read them together, as though
they were a single agreement. While there w ill be references throughout to each agreement
separately, born agreements w ill be referred to together herein as the Agreement.
The Lease Agreement was to cover Part 135 charter operations. It defined Part 135
as 14 C.F.R. Part 135, and Part 91 as 14 C.F.R. Part 91. (Ex. 1, p. 3,)13*
The Lease Agreement provided: [Romeo] agrees to lease to [Eagle Jet], and [Eagle
Jet] agrees to lease from [Romeo], the Aircraft, for On Demand Operations pursuant to part
135 on the terms and conditions o f this Agreement. (Ex. l,p . 4 .) .......................................
The Lease Agreement provided: The standard Hourly Rate for charter flights and
positioning flights in connection with charter flights i s ... (U S$2,700). (Ex. 1, p. 4.)
The Lease Agreement provided: Except as otherwise expressly provided, [Eagle Jetl
shall be solely and exclusively responsible for the use, operation and control o f the Aircraft
during the term o f this Agreement oy any party other than [Romeo], [Eagle Jet] shall operate
the Aircraftonly in accordance with the provisions o f Part 135 and specincallydisclaim s any
operational control, responsibility or liability for Part 91 flights conducted by [Romeo] or any
other entity associated with [Romeo]. Furthermore, [Romeo] shall assume all operational
control, responsibility and liability for Part 91 operations on behalf o f [Romeo].... (Ex. 1,
p. 5.)
The Management Agreement provided: [Eagle Jet] agrees that utilization o f the
Aircraft for charter flights shall be subject to the prior right use o f the Aircraft by [Romeo]
under FAR part 91 provided, [Romeo] "has given [Eagle Jet] at least 48 hours prior notice o f
its proposed use.... If [Romeo] has committed to a charter flight, [Eagle Jet] shall use its
reasonable best efforts to make another aircraft available to [Romeo] for the normal charter
rates for such Aircraft (less 15%, if it is an aircraft owned or managed by [Eagle Jet]). (Ex,
2 ,p .3 .)
i
References are occasionally made to certain exhibits and records throughout this award. The
exhibits and records are not necessarily cited as direct support for any specific finding herein, as the
findings are based on the totality of the evidence presented in the arbitration hearing and determined
by the arbitrator as having been established. In addition, the arbitrator has made a reasonable effort
to be accurate in quoting from portions of the exhibits and other evidentiary matters submitted by
the parties, and apologizes for any typographical errors that may be found herein. Any such errors,
however, do not change the findings and determinations of die Arbitrator, which are based on
weighing all matters submitted.
3
The Management Agreement provided: [Romeo] and [Eagle Jet] expressly

acknowledge and agree that, when [Romeo] utilizes and operates the Aircraft, [Romeo] shall
only use the Aircraft for its ... own business purposes and may not make the Aircraft
available to any other party for any compensation or payment whatsoever and shall (i)
conduct the Aircraft operations under FAR Part 91; (ii) have and retain operational control*
o f the Aircraft...; and (iii) have and retain possession, command and control1o f the Aircraft
for purposes o f the Internal Revenue Code and federal tax purposes. (Ex. 2, p. 6.)
The Management Agreement provided: [Romeo] and [Eagle Jet] expressly
acknowledge and agree that when the Aircraft is utilized and operated for charter nights,
[Eagle Jet] shall (i) conduct the Aircraft operations under FAR Part 135; (ii) have and retain
'operational control1 o f the A ircraft...; and (iii) have and retain possession, command and
control o f the Aircraft for purposes o f the Internal Revenue Code and federal tax purposes.
(Ex. 2, p. 6.)
Eagle Jet agreed to collect and p ay... all sales tax, use tax, federal transportation tax
or excise tax imposed by any governmental authority in connection with any charter o f the
Aircraft. (Ex. 2, p. 3.)
The Management Agreement provided: The terms and conditions (including, without
limitation, [Eagle Jets] compensation in the amount o f fifteen (15%) percent o f all charter
revenues) for use o f the Aircraft for charter flights are set forth in a separate Lease
Agreement among [Romeo] and [Eagle Jet]. (Ex. 2, p. 4.)
The Lease Agreement provided: (Eagle Jet] w ill have primary responsibilities to
market the Aircraft for revenue generating charter flights. [Eagle Jet] shall receive a
commission o f fifteen (15% ) percent o f the total Hourly Rate and Auxiliary Service Charges
for any trip under this Agreement. (Ex. 1, p. 7.)
The Hourly Rate was defined as "the amount charged by [Eagle Jet] to charter
customers per Flight Hour for the Aircraft for charter flights and repositioning flight[s]
associated with charter flights. (Ex. 1, p. 2.)
Auxiliary Service Charges was defined as any amounts billed or billable to charter
customers in addition to Incidental Expenses and charter fees billed or billable at the Hourly
Rate, including, without limitation, minimum daily charges, stand-by or waiting time charges,
and other similar holding charges. (Ex. 1, p. 2 )
Incidental Expenses was defined as all out-of-pocket costs incurred in connection
with any flight, including, without limitation, landing fees, ramp fees, overnight hangar fees,
deicing costs, congested airport charges, contaminant recovery costs, catering costs, flight
personnel requested by a charter customer in addition to the usual Flight Crew, in-flight
entertainment and telecommunications charges, ground transportation, travel expenses o f the
Flight Crew and any other flightpersonnel requested by a charter custom er. . . and any other
similar items, but excluding all Direct Operating Costs and Fixed Operating Costs. (Ex. 1,
p .3 .)
Direct Operating Costs were defined in the Management Agreement, and included
flight crew ana other personnel hourly charges, fuel, oil ...; maintenance o f airframe,
engines and avionics
flight crew expenses for airline travel, ground transportation,
lodging, meals, layover and other similar expenses related to the flight crews activities ...;
weather services; flight services; flight planning fees; over flight fees; landing, ramp,
parking, tie-down ana ground handling fees; storage and hangar use charges at temporary
locations during Aircraft fligh ts;...; supplies; catering;. . contract pilot and cabin charges,
4
maintenance director charges in excess o f the minimum and miscellaneous flight expenses.
(Ex. 2, p. 10.)
Further, the Management Agreement provided: The direct operating costs (other than
the incidental costs and expenses incurred in connection with the charter flights that are
customarily invoiced directly to the charter customer) shall be paid initially by [Eagle Jet]
and billed to [Romeo] when within fifteen (15) days o f being incurred or o f invoices or back
up documentation having been received. (Ex. 2, p. 10.)
Fixed Operating Costs were defined in the Management Agreement, and included
the maintenance directors minimum charges, training
insurance ...; hangar and office
space; [Eagle Jets] Administrative Fee; maintenance and flight manual subscriptions;...
Fixed operating costs were to be paid monthly, in advance, and annual fixed operating costs
were to be prorated per month and billed monthly in advance. (Ex. 2, p. 9.)
Per the Management Agreement, Eagle Jet agreed to keep or cause to be kept
complete, accurate, neat, tim ely and up-to-date logs, books and records... pertaining to the
Aircraft ... and the maintenance thereof, in accordance with the more stringent... industry
standards. (Ex. 2, p. 8.)
Per the Management Agreement, Eagle Jet agreed to provide Romeo with monthly
reports covering, among other things: (a) Fuel purchased;^(b) A ll operating costs, fixed
and direct, with respect to the operation o f the Aircraft; and (c) Copies o fa ll invoices,
statements, and charge slips relating to the operation o f the Aircraft, and other documentation
as [Romeo] shall reasonably request to substantiate expenses billed to or paid by [Romeo]....
(Exhibit 2, p, 9.)
Per the Management Agreement, Eagle Jet was to set up on its books o f account an
..-.account for the Aircraft to record all monies received from [Romeo], all charter revenues,
and all charges for the costs and expenses incurred with respect to the operation o f the
Aircraft, includ[ing], but not limited to, the fixed operating costs, direct operating costs, and
any unscheduled maintenance and non-recurring costs. (Ex. 2, p. 11, emphasis added.)
Per the Management Agreement, Eagle Jet was to first apply all charter revenues to
cover the costs and expenses due by [Romeo] with respect to the fixed and direct operating
c o s t s w it h the exception o f Hanger Rent, MSP and Aircraft Insurance which shall be paid
directly by [R om eo].... (Ex. 2, p. 11.)
Per the Management Agreement, Eagle Jet was to submit to [Romeo] no later than
the fifteenth ( 15th) day o f the month follow ing the end o f each month, and at such other times
as may be necessary or appropriate, detailed statements setting forth the amounts due by
[Romeo] and thereafter pay and remit any balance due to [R om eo].... (Ex 2, p, 11.)
Per the Management Agreement, along with the foregoing statements, Eagle Jet
agreed to provide [Romeo] with itemized documentation evidencing and supporting all the
disbursements and payments made within fifteen (15) days from the end o f each month.
(Ex. 2, p. 11.)
The Management Agreement provided the following: During the term o f this
Agreement and for three years thereafter, fRomeo] or its designated agents shall have the
right, upon reasonable notice, to examine, during regular business hours, all o f [Eagle Jets]
records relating to the services, maintenance ana operations provided under this Agreement,
and any charter flights and to audit the books o f account, records, papers, correspondence,
contracts, and other data relating to the transactions and invoices charged to or paid by
5
[Rom eo]. (E x .2 ,p . 11.)

Per the Lease Agreement, upon any failure o f [Eagle Jet] to duly observe or perform
any o f its obligations hereunder..., [Romeo] may, at its option, declare in writing to [Eagle
Jet] that this [Lease] Agreement is in default; and at any time thereafter, so long as [Eagle
Jet] shall not nave remedied the outstanding default within thirty (30) days, [Romeo] may
cancel, terminate, or rescind this [Lease] Agreement. (Ex 1, p. 9.)
Per the Lease Agreement, upon any failure o f [Romeo] to duly observe or perform
any o f i s obligations hereunder..., [Eagle Jef| may, at its option, declare in writing to
[Romeo' that this (Lease] Agreement is in default; and at any time thereafter, so long as
[Romeo_ shall not nave remedied the outstanding default within thirty (30) days, [Eagle Jet]
icind this [Lease] Agreement. (Ex 1, p. 9.)
may cancel, terminate, or rescind
A dditional Background
Beginning in June 2006 and ending around March 2007, Woods prepared monthly
summary spreadsheet statements intended to show the N et Trip Profit for the purpose o f
determining the revenues that were due Romeo. (Ex. 3.) The parties operated under this
understanding and arrangement for several months.
Kidd met frequently with Woods during the months o f their relationship, and Kidd
kept a running summary o f the statements provided by Eagle Jet. W hile Kidd had some
questions from time to tim e about the statements provided by W oods, he was generally
satisfied with the explanation and information provided by Woods, ana saw no reason to
squabble over what he considered to be rather small amounts.
In the first three months o f 2007, the flight time seemed to decline. Additionally, it
would appear that troubles began brewing in the Eagle Jet management, specifically as they
related to Woods.
Sometime in April 2007, W oods employment with Eagle Jet was terminated. Per
A lex Penly (Penly), the CFO o f Eagle Jet, Woods was terminated for various reasons, one
o f which was that he was no longer authorized to fly the Learjet Per Warren, Woods was
removed because o f issues with the FAA and his lack o f U .S. citizenship. Warren took over
the position o f President o f Eagle Jet on or about April 26,2007.
A s a result o f this termination, the monthly spreadsheet statements that Woods had
been preparing for Romeo stopped coming to Romeo: Nonetheless, Kidd did receive a
statement for April 2007 which, effectively indicated there were significantly reduced
revenues generated as the Leaijet engine needed to be replaced at considerable cost. (Ex. 3.)
After the termination o f W oods, Kidd and Aizenberg met with Warren at Cilis for
lunch. Kidd and Aizenberg had concerns about the accounting, and Warren explained that
Eagle Jet had a new person handling the bookkeeping. A ll seemed to agree that Woods was
not the best record keeper for Eagle Jet. Nonetheless, Eagle Jet acknowledged that funds
were due Romeo by the actions ofW arren in tendering a check to Kidd and Aizenberg in the
amount o f $50,00u. This payment pleased Kidd, albeit temporarily.
In M ay2007, Kidd met with Penly to discuss the monthly statements and other matters
relating to the Learjet lease. Per Penly, Kidd wanted to keep the plane flying. Kidd
complained that Romeo was not getting flight revenues, and he wanted the next statement.
Kidd felt that Eagle Jet was avoiding his concerns and putting o ff its responsibilities. Kidd
was rather agitated during this meeting, and indicated he wanted the Learjet to be given more
6
flight hours to charter customers, as had been done when Woods was there. Eagle Jet was
under contract, however, with another owner o f a similar aircraft, and Penly told Kidd that
he would toy to split the work between the two. Penly believed, however, that Eagle Jet
was still meeting the minimum time under the Agreem ent Natalie Ahlstrom (Ahlstrom)
was brought into the meeting for a few minutes to listen to and address some o f Kidds
concerns.
Kidd received the May and June 2007 statements prepared by Ahsitrom. Kidd was
not p leased, however, with their contents, and he could not understand why the revenues had
dropped by some 30% over what they had previously been. Kidd called Ahlstrom requesting
the backup invoices for the April and May statements. Kidd indicated to her that the
statements didnt add up and that he wanted to audit the records.
In June 2007, Penly was in the United Kingdom. While there, he learned o f a request
from Kidd that Kidd wanted W oods, who had been previously terminated, to pilot the Learjet
for a private owner flight on the 4th o f July. Penly did not think that would oe appropriate,
as Woods was no longer an employee o f Eagle Jet, not insured, and not then certified to fly
the Leaijet.
On June 29,2007, Kidd and Aizenbei]g met again with Warren, and they laid out their
concerns. In addition, Kidd and Aizenberg indicated to Warren that they wanted a mutual
termination o f the Agreement, and Warren was presented with a proposed cancellation
agreement. Kidd apparently wanted the Agreement terminated that day. Warren responded
to the effect that he thought that flights had been scheduled, and that he wanted to think
about the matter and review the proposed cancellation agreement.
After the meeting with Kidd and Aizenberg, however, Warren took immediate steps
to cancel the insurance on the Learjet and take the aircraft o ff o f the 135 Certificate. Per
Warren, arrangements were made to refuel the Learj et and then to move it to another hanger.
Warren sent an email to John Kaylor and Carl Shephard indicating that he had just met
with the "owners o f the Learjet^ and they have terminated their management
agreements.... The email further indicated that Eagle Jet would not have the Leaqet for
charters in July and that the Learjet was to be removed from Eagle Jets insurance coverage
if it was part or its fleet policy. Then, Warren referenced a follow-up meeting in July with
the owners to settle up accounts. (Ex. T.)
Per Kidd, within an hour o f the meeting with Warren, he learned that Eagle Jet had
cancelled the insurance, had the Learjet taken o ff o f the 135 charter certificate, and had the
aircraft moved from the hanger to the tarmac. Per Kidd, a business competitor o f Eagle Jet,
agreed to have the Learjet moved into its hanger.
At one point, Romeo was fine with just getting backup documentation and a
reconciliation for the last three statements, as, to Kiad, there was no sense to argue over
small numbers. But given the events, Kidd rethought his position and determined that an
audit o f the past year was warranted.
In June 2007, Eagle Jet, through Ahlstrom, attempted to recreate and correct or
adjust the prior monthly report statements that had been prepared by Woods. Based on this
adjustment, Ahlstrom came to the conclusion that not only did Eagle Jet not owe any
additional funds to Romeo, but Romeo had been overpaid by some $119,349.57. (Ex. 4.)
None o f this made any sense to Kidd, who remained convinced that Eagle Jet owed money
to Romeo. Kidd prepared a revised summary o f the Eagle Jet statements.
7
On or about June 29, 2007, Kidd and Aizenberg again met with Warren, who
purportedly told them they would settle up on the accounting numbers by mid July.
On July 26,2007, Kidd sent an email to Ahlstrom, attaching his spreadsheet summary
o f the monthly income and expense statements. Kidd referenced that per our agreement
with Eagle JJet] w e [Romeo] left $100,000 + with Eagle [Jet] for monthly expense. (Ex.
G .) Kidd further indicated that after giving credit for the $50,000 check given to him by
Warren, Romeo was owed through May 2007 the sum o f $142,936.46 (and that the June
numbers were not reflected in his analysis as they were incomplete.) (Ex, G.) Kidd further
indicated that the settling up on the accounting numbers (income and expenses) o f what was
owed to Romeo did not happen, and he was waiting for Eagle Jet representatives to sit
down with Romeo representatives. (Ex. G.) He requested a complete accounting o f the
backup for all o f the numbers beginning April 1,2007. (Ex. G.)
On July 28, 2007, Kidd sent an email to Ahlstrom. Among other things, Kidd
questioned various alleged overcharges and undercharges, and said he *expect(ed] the truth.
Kidd wanted all expenses to the penny. He also acknowledged that certain entities he
was involved with owes (sic) money for owner trips. Kida indicated, [tlhese will be
settled with the final accounting. Kidd also acknowledged there may have been charges
left o ff in any given month or they may have been charged in the follow ing months, but
nonetheless he contended there is revenue not reflected,r(FET refunds quarterly). (Ex. H.)
On August 8,2007, the parties representatives and their attorneys met at the offices
o f Eagle Jet to discuss various matters, including the positions o f the parties with respect to
who owed what to whom. At the meeting Eagle Jet presented Romeo with a spreadsheet,
using a format different from prior spreadsheets, suggesting that Romeo owed Eagle Jet
monies. (Ex. I.)
Ahlstrom prepared the spreadsheet (Ex. I), which she called a Final Reconciliation,
and compiled certain invoices (Ex. J) and backup (Ex. K) for the August 8 ,2007 meeting.
She also compiled additional invoices that were produced sometime after the meeting. (Ex.
L). It appears Ahlstrom started with the figure o f $142,936.45 that Romeo contended it was
owed at the time, and then itemized various expenses and gave credit for other matters. (Ex.
I.)
The Eagle Jet Final Reconciliation was an attempt to account for all matters,
including the missing expenses. This statement included commissions for what has been
referred to as owner flights o f Romeo, as Eagle Jet had taken the position that these were
not true Part 91 owner flights, but Part 135 Charter flights, and thus entitling Eagle Jet to a
commission. As a starting point, Eagle Jet used the figure o f $ 142,936.46 purportedly owed
to Romeo (per a prior spreadsheet prepared by Kidd), and both parties acknowledge certain
errors in this spreadsheet. (Ex. I.)
Eagle Jet also provided Romeo with various invoices at this meeting. At some point,
Eagle Jet supplemented its production by providing Romeo with additional invoices.
Per Warren, Romeo was going to review the materials supplied by Eagle Jet and get
back to Eagle Jet to continue the dialogue. Suit was filed shortly thereafter.
On October 23, 2007, counsel for Eagle Jet delivered to counsel for Romeo a letter
enclosing a purported detailed accounting, with substantiating invoices o f Romeos
account with Eagle Jet for the Learjet, and demanding $119,349.57 as payment due. (Ex. 9.)
Based on the invoices and information available to him, Kidd performed his audit
o f the records, and set forth his results in a month-by-month spreadsheet dated October 7,
2008. (Ex. 6.) This sheet superseded the prior spreadsheet prepared by Kidd (Ex. P).
Among other things, Kidd concluded that Eagle Jet had failed to credit Romeo for an
insurance refiind and the fuel excise tax rebate. Kiddjprenared a summary o f his audit or
analysis o f October 7, 2008, and concluded that Eagle Jet owed Romeo the sum o f
$156,967.94. (Ex. 7.)
Ahlstrom prepared her summary or analysis prior to the arbitration hearings, and
concluded that Eagle Jet overpaid Romeo by the sum o f $231,000, and that is what Eagle Jet
was owed by Romeo. (Ex. D7) This amount is higher than the $202,596.79 figure provided
and requested at the close o f arbitration.
D eterm inations
While using the same Agreement and essentially the same background information,
the parties have taken different approaches in an attempt to explain what each believes it is
lawfully owed by the other. The results are as different as the m ethodologies used, and
several different accountings and amounts have been presented to the arbitrator for
consideration. Part o f the problem stems from the fact that W oods, as the former president
o f Eagle Jet and the person largely responsible for keeping track o f important account
information, expenses, and revenues, did not appear to be a very good record keeper, and the
parties have had to rely on inconsistent, inaccurate, and incomplete records and information
in preparing their respective positions and accountings to the arbitrator.
At some point prior to the time o f the arbitration hearing, there were three major
points o f contention between the parties: (1) whether Eagle Jet was entitled to a 15%
commission on flights that Romeo believed were Part 91 flights; (2) whether Romeo was
entitled to a credit Tor the Fuel Excise Tax; and (3) whether Eagle Jet could recoup claimed
expenses for which there were no supporting invoices. At the time o f the arbitration, Romeo
and Eagle Jet addressed matters with respect to these three disputed areas, but Eagle Jet also
approached its defenses and counterclaims from a different point o f view , which included,
among other things, damages claims for Romeos alleged early termination o f the Agreement
and damages from applying its interpretation (or reinterpretation) o f the compensation
formula in the Agreement.2
When all is said and done, Romeo takes the position that it is owed $156,967.94.
Essentially, Romeo has arrived at this figure by looking at the monthly statements prepared
by Eagle Jet (Ex. 3), summarizing those statements (Ex. 5), auditing*the records provided
to it, and making adjustments as it deemed proper (Ex. 7). In performing this analysis,
Romeo took into account, among other things, m issing and unsubstantiated invoices, charges
for certain fees (such as landing charges) that it contends were never really incurred, and the
alleged improper charges o f commissions for Part 91 owner flights.
As contended by Romeo, there are certain ambiguities in the Agreement. See e.g., Romeos
Closing Brief at pp. 2-7,
9
On the other hand, when all is said and done, Eagle Jet takes the position that it is
owed $202,596.79. This figure is based on a calculation that allegedly considers charter
revenues, amounts paid to Romeo, and a refund o f an insurance premium, and then deducts
certain credits claimed by Eagle Jet, as set forth more fully in Eagle Jets closing brief. This
final analysis of Eagle Jet, which is based on its interpretation o f the Agreement, is the latest
in a series o f calculations or reconciliations performed by Eagle Jet with different results.
Indeed, prior to the arbitration, Eagle Jet put together various accountings and reconciliations
in an attempt to determine and resolve tne respective claims. Each, however, resulted in a
different figure, ranging from monies owed to Romeo to monies owed to Eagle Jet.
With respect to the termination o f the Agreement, the arbitrator determines that the
response o f Eagle Jet to Rom eos proposed mutual termination o f the Agreement by
cancelling the insurance, pulling the 135 certificate, and moving the Learjet from the hangar
shortly alter learning o f Romecrs proposal, effectively terminated the Agreement, and thus
there is no basis for Eagle Jet to recover damages or recoup or offset any additional charges
that relate to or result from the termination o f tne A greem ent In other words, the arbitrator
determines that Romeo was in the process o f frying to work out a mutual termination o f the
Agreement when Eagle Jet effected a termination by cancelling the insurance on the Learjet,
moving the Learjet from the hangar, and removing the Learjet from Eagle Jets FAA 135
certificate. Thus, there is no basis on which Eagle jet could reasonably claim entitlement to
these types o f post-termination commissions and hangar rents, and the claims o f Eagle Jet
for purported lost commissions, revenues, or damages from the alleged early termination are
denied.
With respect to the alleged Part 91 owner flights, the arbitrator determines that the
Agreement calls for commissions to be paid to Eagle Jet for Part 135 charter flights, but not
for Part 91 flights. Eagle Jet takes the position that even if this is a correct interpretation of
the Agreement, the so-called owner flights were not true Part 91 flights, as the technical
owner o f the Learjet was Romeo itself, not the members o f Romeo. Based on all matters
presented, including the Agreement and the arguments set forth by Romeo in its closing brief,
the arbitrator disagrees with Eagle Jet on this, and determines that it was clear from the outset
and throughout tne parties course o f dealing that flights o f Rom eos principals were
intended, considered, and treated by all parties as Part 91 owner flights. As such, they were
flights for which Eagle Jet was not entitled to receive a commission. It was clearly
understood between Romeo and Woods, who was the president o f Eagle Jet, that the owners
(i.e .j the members o f Romeo) were entitled to fly their own aircraft and simply pay the
expenses related to that flight, but not commissions to Eagle Jet. In the summary oi damages
and claims prepared by Romeo for the arbitration, Romeo has properly credited the sums it
is entitled to for these flights (Ex. 7), and Eagle Jet is not entitled to any commissions for
these owner flights.3
With respect to the Fuel Excise Tax, there is agreement among the parties that there
is (or was) a rebate for this in the amount o f $29,077 (5>1 5,521 in 2006 and $13,556 in 2007).
There is disagreement, however, as to who is entitled to that refund or rebate. Based on the
Agreement, and for the reasons argued by Romeo in its briefs, the arbitrator determines that
Romeo is entitled to the rebate for the Fuel Excise Tax. Again, these sums have been
credited appropriately in Rom eos summary o f its claimed damages (Ex. 7).
It appears that Eagle Jet had given Romeo credit for some o f these owner flights, which was
taken into account in the analysis prepared by Kidd. (Ex. 7.)
10
With respect to the expense claims o f Eagle Jet that Romeo contends are unsupported
by Invoices, the arbitrator agrees in part, ana disagrees in part, with Romeo. Romeo
contends, among other things, that Eagle Jet has attempted to assert claims and charges
against Romeo for numerous charges, such as landing fees, ramp fees, and miscellaneous
expenses,4 for which it failed to provide supporting invoices. Romeo correctly points out that
the Management Agreement obligates Eagle Jet to provide Romeo with monthly reports,
including copies o f all invoices, statements, and charge slips relating to the operation o f the
aircraft, and that the Agreement allows a right to audit the records. Nonetheless, some
invoices have been provided {some later than others), and it is further apparent that some
matters o f expense were actually incurred by Eagle Jet, or were o f such an amount and nature
that Romeo should have questioned and confirmed them at or near the time they were
purportedly incurred, even though they lacked full substantiation or a corresponding invoice.
In short, the arbitrator rejects the approach argued by Eagle Jet and favors the
approach presented by Romeo, as adjusted below. In other words, in determining what is
owed here, it is reasonable to look at the methodology employed by Romeo, which is based
on the monthly statements provided to it by Eagle Jet. In this regard, Romeo has made a
reasonable attempt to review the monthly statements prepared by Woods, the former
president o f Eagle Jet, and a reasonable attempt to reconcile those monthly statements with
the backup information and documentation provided by Eagle Jet. While this approach,
however, is appropriate here, there must be further deductions taken and offsets made to the
analysis o f Romeo, as stated below.
The arbitrator determines that Romeo, in effect, accepted certain charges and expenses
Eagle Jet, and is now estopped from claiming credits for those charges and expenses that, in
the arbitrators determination, could have, and should have, been readily verified closer to
the time they were incurred, when Kidd had his routine meetings with Woods. Specifically,
the arbitrator determines that Romeo accepted certain expenses as identified in the following
categories: (I ) pilot expenses, (2) catering expenses, and (3) certain other unidentified
expenses o f $500 or more. These total $77,119.92.
Thus, taking Rom eos result o f $156,967.94, and deducting the additional sum o f
$77,119.92 in accepted expenses, as determined by the arbitrator, this leaves a balance due
from Eagle Jet to Romeo in the amount o f $79,848.02.
A w ard
Based on the evidence presented at arbitration, and for good cause, Romeo is awarded
the sum o f $79,848.02 aga inst E agle Jet on its cla im in a rb itra tio n .
Based on the evidence presented at arbitration, and except to the extent the
counterclaim o f Eagle Jet was used as an offset to the claims o f Romeo (as already taken into
account above), the c o u n te rcla im o f E agle Jet is denied , and no sums are awarded thereon.
This award is in full settlement o f all claims submitted to this arbitration, and all other
claims submitted that are not granted herein are denied, except for motions that the parties
may file within ten days o f the date o f service o f this award for attorneys fees, costs, and
interest, as the case may be.
It is further apparent to the arbitrator that there were times when Eagle Jet charged for
landing and ramp fees that were never incurred.
11
This constitutes the full record o f the award.

DATED this 4th day o f December 2008.
SMITH LARSEN & WIXQM
JayJsafTSmith, Esd.
Nevada B a r N o 3 ?82
Arbitrator
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY M AIL

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this ^T day o f December 2008, a duplicate original
o f the foregoing A rbitration Award was mailed, postage prepaid, to the following:
Albert G. Marquis, Esq.

Erik W. Fox, Esq.
Marquis & Aurbach
Las Vegas, NV 89145
Attorneys for Plaintiff / Counterdefendant
4 Romeo Whiskey, LLC
Las Vegas, NV 89113
Attorneys for Defendant / Counterclaimant
Eagle Jet Aviation, Inc. / )
12
Jay Earl Smith, Esq.

Nevada Bar No. 1182
SMITH LARSEN & WDCOM
Tel: (702)252-5002
Fax: (702) 252-5006
Arbitrator
received
JAN 2 7 2009
MARQUIS & AUHttACH
PRIVATE ARBITRATION
4 ROMEO WHISKEY, LLC,

a Nevada Limited Liability Company,
Plaintiff/Counterdefendant,
v.
\
EAGLE JET AVIATION, INC., '
a Nevada Corporation,
Defendant / Counterclaimant,
______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
DETERMINATION IN ARBITRATION
RE ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS,
.
ANDINTEREST
) ..V';
. ) .
)
)
)
The Arbitration Award in this matter was issued on December 4, 2008, awarding Plaintiff
4 Romeo Whiskey, LLC ("Romeo) die sum o f $79,848.02, and denying the counterclaim of Eagle
Jet Aviation, Inc. (Eagle Jet).
Thereafter, Romeo filed a motion for attorneys fees, costs, and interest (the Motion),
Eagle filed an opposition to the Motion (the Opposition), and Romeo filed a reply in support of
the Motion (the Reply). Both parties also submitted brief supplemental information by way of
email transmissions. The Arbitrator has considered the Motion, the Opposition, the Reply, and all
other matters submitted by the parties in connection with the Motion.
In assessing the reasonableness of the attorneys fees awarded herein, the Arbitrator
considered, among other things: (1) the qualities of the advocates - which were excellent on both
sides; (2) die character o f the work to be done - which was fairly complex; (3) the work actually
performed - which was considerable; and (4) the result achieved - which was appropriate and
warranted in light o f the claims presented, but substantially less than what Romeo sought. Both
parties claimed entitlement to significant sums from the other side, and the respective claims were
vigorously pursued and defended against.
Ideate tD:
!File No.:
j-Amiiw:,
if-ilendored^jf:*
mz/z.
Now therefore, for good cause, the Arbitrator hereby grants the Motion in the following
respects:
Attorneys* Fees: Attorneys fees are recoverable pursuant to the Management Agreement,
Romeo is awarded reasonable attorneys fees in the amount of $38,000.
Costs: The parties agreed to share the Arbitrators fees, and after deducting the sum of
$4,375.00 from the itemized costs of $6,707.57, Romeo is awarded costs in the amount of $2,332.57.
Interest: Romeo is awarded interest on the award, through the date of the award, in the
amount o f $7,119.15, plus daily interest thereafter in the amount o f $15.31, until satisfied.
To the extent that other relief is sought, it is denied.
DATED this
JSt
o f January 2009.
SMITH LARSEN & WIXQM
Nevada Bar No. 1182

Arbitrator
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this g P & lay of January 2009, a duplicate original o f the
foregoing Determination in Arbitration Re Attorneys Fees, Costs, and Interest was mailed,
postage prepaid, to the following:
Albert G. Marquis, Esq.
Erik W. Fox, Esq.
Marquis & Aurbach
Las Vegas, NV 89145
Attorneys for Plaintiff / Counterdefendant
4 Romeo Whiskey, LLC
Las Vegas, NV 89113
Attorneys for Defendant / Counterclaimant
Eagle Jet Aviation" Inc/Y
an ^h1 iloyee of Smita Larsen & Wixom
u
2
ORDR
M arquis & Aurbach
Nevada Bar No. 1919
ERIK W. FOX, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8804
Telephone: (702) 382-0711
Facsimile: (702) 382-5816
amarquis@marquisaurbach.com
efox@marquisaurbach.com
DISTRICT COURT
10
11

Liability Company,
Case No:
Dept. No.:
A545562
XI
12
V
<
pa
Plaintiffs,
I
?
13
e$ > 5; 3 c-asaa ca .
14
CD a. a _
16
2
a - ^ ^
17
18
NH M
<1 o rv.
<
Date o f Hearing:
vs.
15

Time o f Hearing:
19
Defendants.
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGMENT
This matter having come before this Court o n _______________on 4 Romeo Whiskey,
LLC's, Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award, and this Court, having considered the pleadings
and papers on file herein and good cause appearing therefor, finds and orders and follows:
4 Romeo Whiskey, LLC's Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED and
Judgment is hereby entered.
26
27
28
Page 1 o f 2
M&A:002S3-004 738966 1 2/6/2009 8:31 AM
Judgment shall, and hereby is, entered in favor o f 4 Romeo Whiskey, LLC, and against
Eagle Jet, Inc. in the sum o f $127,299.74 plus post-judgment interest at the rate o f $15.13 per
day from December 4, 2008, forward until the amount is satisfied.
DATED:
, 2009.
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
7
8
9
Respectively Submitted by:

MARQUIS & AURBACH
10
11
12
13
14
15
B y ___________________________
Nevada Bar No. 1919
ERIK W. FOX, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8804
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 2 o f 2
M&A:00253-004 738966_1 2/6/2009 8:31 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
02/11/2009 07:56:22 AM
E -M L B L IF E
O R IG IN A L
ROC
M a rq u is & A u rb a c h
ALBERT 0 . M ARQUIS, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 1919
ERIK W. FOX, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8804
Las Vegas, N evada 89145
Telephone: (702) 382-0711
Facsimile: (702) 382-5816
amarquis@ marquisaurbach.com
efox@ marquisaurbach.com
CLERK OF THE COURT
DISTRICT COURT
8
9
10
11
4 ROM EO W HISKEY, LLC; a Nevada Limited

M ANAGEM ENT, LLC; a Nevada Limited
Liability Company,
12
5W
<
00
g -Sssr
P Q -S
H 'T'
^ !*
a-8j-h = s
P ,S8*5?>
*&
*-a a
a'
< s
15
16
17
/"v
r-
A545562
XI
Plaintiffs,
RECEIPT OF COPY
vs.
13
14
Case N o:
Dept. No.:

M ANAGEM ENT, INC., a California
Corporation, STUART WARREN; an individual, D ate o f H e a lin g : February 2 4,2009
T im e o f H earin g : 9:00 a.m.
18
Defendants.
19
RECEIPT OF COPY o f P L A IN T IF F 4 R O M E O W H ISK E Y , L L C S M O T IO N T O
20
C O N F IR M
A R B IT R A T IO N
A W A RD
A G A IN S T
D E FEN D A N T
EAGLE
JE T
21
22
A V IA T IO N , IN C . O N AN O R D E R SH O R T E N IN G T IM E is hereby acknowledged this
/q
day o f February, 2009.
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATE:
Kl L
j/
Printed Nam e
f r e
Suvinde^/S: Ahluwalia, E s q /
Sklar, W arren, Conway & .$ illiams, LLP
Attorney for Defendants
Page 1 o f 1
M&A:00253-004 742593 1 2/10/2009 2:43 PM

Case A545562: 4 Romeo Whiskey Vs Eagle Jet Aviation, Alex Penly Et Al.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case A545562: 4 Romeo Whiskey Vs Eagle Jet Aviation, Alex Penly Et Al.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

r o e ; a on a t

4 ROMEO WHISKEY, LLC; a Nevada Limited

EXEMPT FROM ARBITRATION

4 Romeo Whiskey, LLC, (4 Romeo Whiskey) owns a Leaijet Aircraft Model

55B, federal aviation number N73GP.

Running Water, LLC, (Running Water) owns a Bombardier Challenger Cl-600-

2B16, federal aviation number N24IN.

Alexander Penly (Penly) is a principal and employee o f Eagle Jet.

John Kay lor (Kaylor) is a principal o f Advanced Air.

Scott Chikar (Chikar) is a principal o f Advanced Air.

Advanced Air Management, Inc., (Advanced A ir) is a business that operates

and manages commercial charter and private charter aircraft.

commercial charter and private charter aircraft.

collectively herein as Defendants.

The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or

proximately caused the damages and injuries to Plaintiff as hereinafter alleged.

THE LEAR JET MANAGEMENT AND LEASE AGREEMENTS

an Aircraft Management Agreement and Lease

Agreement (the Lear Jet

(hereinafter Leaijet) for commercial charter purposes.

regular accounting o f the commercial charter use o f the Leaijet.

TH E C H A L LE N G E R M ANAGEM ENT AND LEA SE A G REEM EN TS

On or about April 8, 2007, Running Water and Advanced Air executed an

Aircraft Management Agreement and Lease Agreement (the Challenger Agreements).

10001 Park Run Drive

a regular accounting of the commercial charter use o f the Challenger.

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations hereinabove inclusively, as though

and on behalf o f 4 Romeo Whiskey.

Jet to Eagle Jet.

All conditions precedent, if any, have been met by 4 Romeo Whiskey.

Lear Jet Agreements.

M&A:00253-004 4 4 9 2 7 4 J 7/31/2007 8:57 AM

Plaintiffs are entitled to attorney fees and costs as special damages.

As a further direct and proximate result o f Defendants breaches, Plaintiffs have

Plaintiffs have been required to engage the services o f an attorney in these

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations hereinabove inclusively, as though

Challenger for and on behalf o f Running Water.

Challenger to Advanced Air.

under that agreement.

All conditions precedent, if any, have been met by Running Water.

Chikar, are the alter egos of Advance Air.

The individual principals o f Advanced Air conspired to commercially charter the

Challenger knowing that it was not properly certificated.

Running Water was contractually entitled to,

Plaintiffs have been required to engage the services o f an attorney in these

As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants breaches, Plaintiffs have

Plaintiffs are entitled to attorney fees and costs as special damages.

BREA CH O F IM PL IE D COVENANT O F GO O D FA ITH AND FA IR DEALING

Whiskey and Running Water (collectively the Plaintiffs) in good faith.

good faith under the agreements referenced inclusively above.

Defendants and Plaintiffs enjoyed a special relationship o f trust.

Defendants breached the special relationship o f trust.

Plaintiffs have been required to engage the services of an attorney in these

As a further direct and proximate result o f Defendants breach, Plaintiffs have

Defendants maliciously, with conscious disregard or indifference to consequence,

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations hereinabove inclusively, as though

fully herein, and incorporates the same by reference.

trust with the Plaintiffs.

and Challenger Agreements, which in all fairness, belongs to the Plaintiffs.

constructive trust for the Plaintiffs.

Defendants maintained a fiduciary confidential relationship and one o f special

As a direct and proximate cause o f Defendants breach. Plaintiffs have been

damaged in excess o f $10,000, plus interest thereon, in an amount to be determined at trial.