Gladiator
17th June 2000, 11:11
The following material are from case No. C99-0699R filed in the United States Federal Court and are Public information under United States law.
This is a joint status report by SIA and the defendant's lawyers which gives an overview of the case as of August 1999.
Joint Status Report
Pursuant to the Court's Order dated July 14, 1999, the two parties hereby submit this joint status report.
1. Nature of the Case. On May 4, 1999, the plaintiff, Singapore Airlines Limited ("SIA"), filed this action against defendants XXX a former pilot for SIA whom SIA alleges has breached bonding agreement that he entered into in exchange for training by SIA.
The agreements provided for XXX to remain in the service of SIA for a total of seven years following the completion of his initial tra8ining as a 747 pilot. The agreements provided for schedules of liquidation damages to be paid by XXX should he leave the airline before completion of the specified period of service. SIA alleges that XXX left SIA prior to the expiration of the periods of service and thus owes damages to it based on the schedules set forth in the bonding agreements. SIA has also asserted a claim against XXX for unjust enrichment and payment of salary in lieu of notice.
The defendants have jointly answered the complaint and denied all od SIA's claims. The defendants have asserted various sffirmative defences alleging that SIA breached its agreements with XXX by requiring him to perform duties beyond his capacity as a first officer or co-pilot; and without possessing the license and qualifications required for the duties performed. defendants allege that SIA conducted unsafe operations and provided an unsafe workplace, in violation of international avaition laws and standards, FAA regulations, and public policy. Defendants further allege that SIA's breaches of contract and unsafe operating practices discharged any alleged duties or liabilities of defendants to SIA, and rendered the liquidated damages clauses unenforceable. Defendants deny that XXX was unjustly enriched in any way.
The defendants have also asserted counterclaims that are consistent with these affeirmative defences. The counterclaims again allege that it was SIA who was in breach by requiring XXX to fly in a capacity for which he was not licensed or qualified, and by providing an unsafe work environment. In addition to monetary damages sought by XXX for SIA's alleged breach of contract, the defendant also seek a declaratory judgement that SIA engaged in unsafe airline operations in violation of international laws and standards, FAA regulations and public policy, as well as that any alleged contractual duties and liabilities of XXX and the sureties were discharged by SIA's breaches of contract and other conduct.
2. Complexity of Discovery and Trial. The original claim by SIA is not complex. it asserts that there are written agreements between XXX, the sureties and SIA and that XXX and the sureties are in breach. The trial may be complicated by issues of foreign law because the agreements contain a choice of law provision regarding Singapore law, and because defendants allege that international laws and standards apply.
Defendants affirmative defences and counterclaims present more complex legal and factual issues because they propose a detailed inquiry into the flight operations, training, licensing and safety practices of SIA.
The parties expect to serve written discovery in the near future. SIA expects to note the deposition of each defendant following written discovery, which it anticipates serving forthwith. Defendants anticipate taking depositions of current and /or former employees of SIA. Defendants also may depose employees or representatives of the FAA, the International Civil Aviation Organization, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, and /or other airlines. Experts may be called to testify concerning aviation regulations and safety issues. before taking depositions, defendants expect to serve written discovery requests upon SIA.
3. Estimated Date as to when Discovery can be completed. The Plaintiff estimates that discovery can be completed by April 1, 2000. The Defendants estimate that discovery can be completed by July 15, 2000.
4. Trial by Court or Jury. Defendants provided notice to SIA in the late sfternoon of August 12, 1999 that they were seeking a jury trial. However, as of 11:00 am on August 13, 1999 no jury demand has been filed with the court; SIA therefore reserves the right to contest the Defendants jury demand on the grounds that such demand was not timely filed.
5. Lenth of Trial. The parties anticipate that the case can be tried in five days.
6. Pretrial motions. SIA expects to bring pretrial motions challenging the sufficiency of certain of defendant's defences, and potentially dispositive motions concerning its claims and defendants counterclaims. Defendants expect to file pretrial motions regarding choice of law issues and the application of International lawsa and standards to SIA operations, and dispositive motion(s) for dismissal of SIA claims and /or judgment on their counterclaims.
7. Settlement Discussions: The parties are in communication and have had as yet unsuccessful, non-mediated settlement discussions.
8. Date for Trial. SIA believes that this case will be ready for trial in the late spring or early summer of 2000. The defendants believe that the case will be ready for trial in the late summer or early fall of 2000.
End.
This is a joint status report by SIA and the defendant's lawyers which gives an overview of the case as of August 1999.
Joint Status Report
Pursuant to the Court's Order dated July 14, 1999, the two parties hereby submit this joint status report.
1. Nature of the Case. On May 4, 1999, the plaintiff, Singapore Airlines Limited ("SIA"), filed this action against defendants XXX a former pilot for SIA whom SIA alleges has breached bonding agreement that he entered into in exchange for training by SIA.
The agreements provided for XXX to remain in the service of SIA for a total of seven years following the completion of his initial tra8ining as a 747 pilot. The agreements provided for schedules of liquidation damages to be paid by XXX should he leave the airline before completion of the specified period of service. SIA alleges that XXX left SIA prior to the expiration of the periods of service and thus owes damages to it based on the schedules set forth in the bonding agreements. SIA has also asserted a claim against XXX for unjust enrichment and payment of salary in lieu of notice.
The defendants have jointly answered the complaint and denied all od SIA's claims. The defendants have asserted various sffirmative defences alleging that SIA breached its agreements with XXX by requiring him to perform duties beyond his capacity as a first officer or co-pilot; and without possessing the license and qualifications required for the duties performed. defendants allege that SIA conducted unsafe operations and provided an unsafe workplace, in violation of international avaition laws and standards, FAA regulations, and public policy. Defendants further allege that SIA's breaches of contract and unsafe operating practices discharged any alleged duties or liabilities of defendants to SIA, and rendered the liquidated damages clauses unenforceable. Defendants deny that XXX was unjustly enriched in any way.
The defendants have also asserted counterclaims that are consistent with these affeirmative defences. The counterclaims again allege that it was SIA who was in breach by requiring XXX to fly in a capacity for which he was not licensed or qualified, and by providing an unsafe work environment. In addition to monetary damages sought by XXX for SIA's alleged breach of contract, the defendant also seek a declaratory judgement that SIA engaged in unsafe airline operations in violation of international laws and standards, FAA regulations and public policy, as well as that any alleged contractual duties and liabilities of XXX and the sureties were discharged by SIA's breaches of contract and other conduct.
2. Complexity of Discovery and Trial. The original claim by SIA is not complex. it asserts that there are written agreements between XXX, the sureties and SIA and that XXX and the sureties are in breach. The trial may be complicated by issues of foreign law because the agreements contain a choice of law provision regarding Singapore law, and because defendants allege that international laws and standards apply.
Defendants affirmative defences and counterclaims present more complex legal and factual issues because they propose a detailed inquiry into the flight operations, training, licensing and safety practices of SIA.
The parties expect to serve written discovery in the near future. SIA expects to note the deposition of each defendant following written discovery, which it anticipates serving forthwith. Defendants anticipate taking depositions of current and /or former employees of SIA. Defendants also may depose employees or representatives of the FAA, the International Civil Aviation Organization, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, and /or other airlines. Experts may be called to testify concerning aviation regulations and safety issues. before taking depositions, defendants expect to serve written discovery requests upon SIA.
3. Estimated Date as to when Discovery can be completed. The Plaintiff estimates that discovery can be completed by April 1, 2000. The Defendants estimate that discovery can be completed by July 15, 2000.
4. Trial by Court or Jury. Defendants provided notice to SIA in the late sfternoon of August 12, 1999 that they were seeking a jury trial. However, as of 11:00 am on August 13, 1999 no jury demand has been filed with the court; SIA therefore reserves the right to contest the Defendants jury demand on the grounds that such demand was not timely filed.
5. Lenth of Trial. The parties anticipate that the case can be tried in five days.
6. Pretrial motions. SIA expects to bring pretrial motions challenging the sufficiency of certain of defendant's defences, and potentially dispositive motions concerning its claims and defendants counterclaims. Defendants expect to file pretrial motions regarding choice of law issues and the application of International lawsa and standards to SIA operations, and dispositive motion(s) for dismissal of SIA claims and /or judgment on their counterclaims.
7. Settlement Discussions: The parties are in communication and have had as yet unsuccessful, non-mediated settlement discussions.
8. Date for Trial. SIA believes that this case will be ready for trial in the late spring or early summer of 2000. The defendants believe that the case will be ready for trial in the late summer or early fall of 2000.
End.