Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK

Document 77

Filed 12/07/2005

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 01-K-2056

UNITED STATES AVIATION UNDERWRITERS, INC. a New York corporation; PAUL LEADABRAND, an Idaho resident; and JEFLYN AVIATION, INC. dba ACCESS AIR, an Idaho corporation, Plaintiffs, Vs.

PILATUS BUSINESS AIRCRAFT, LTD, a Colorado corporation; PILATUS FLUGZEUGWERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, a Swiss corporation, PILATUS AIRCRAFT, LTD, A Swiss corporation; PRATT & WHITNEY CANADA, INC., a Canadian corporation; and DOES 1 through 500, Inclusive, Defendants.

JOINDER OF DEFENDANTS PILATUS BUSINESS AIRCRAFT, LTD, PILATUS FLUGZEUGWERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT AND PILATUS AIRCRAFT, LTD IN DEFENDANT PRATT & WHITNEY CANADA'S REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ORDER AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants Pilatus Business Aircraft, Ltd, Pilatus Flugzeugwerke Aktiengesellschaft and Pilatus Aircraft, Ltd (collectively "Pilatus") hereby join in the Reply to Plaintiffs' Response by Defendant Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc. to its Motion for Reconsideration filed December 6, 2005 and further states: As previously briefed, the Supreme Court in Executive Jet Aviation v. City of Cleveland 409 U.S. 249 (1972) and Offshore Logistics Inc. v. Tallentire 477 U.S. 207 (1986) held that certain aviation cases fall within the Court's Admiralty jurisdiction. To say that the facts of this

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK

Document 77

Filed 12/07/2005

Page 2 of 3

case do not fit the Court's definition of Admiralty jurisdiction is to deny that any aviation case fits that definition in contravention of the Court's finding. Moreover, new evidence offered by Pratt and Whitney in its Motion establishes beyond dispute that this aircraft purchase was a commercial transaction between parties of equal bargaining power. Since this case fits squarely within the four corners of the Supreme Court's decision in East River Steamship Corp. v. Tranamerica Deleval Inc. 476 U.S. 858 (1986), the imposition of additional requirements beyond those four corners would contravene that decision as well. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 7th day of December 2005. By__/s Robert Schultz_______________________ Robert Schultz Law Office of Robert B. Schultz 9710 W. 82nd Ave. Arvada, CO 80005 Tel (303) 456-5565 Fax (303) 456-5575 E-mail [email protected] Attorney For Defendants Pilatus Business Aircraft, Ltd And Pilatus Flugzeugwerke Aktiengesellschaft/ Pilatus Aircraft, Ltd

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK

Document 77

Filed 12/07/2005

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 7th day of December 2005, I caused the forgoing JOINDER OF DEFENDANTS PILATUS BUSINESS AIRCRAFT, LTD, PILATUS FLUGZEUGWERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT AND PILATUS AIRCRAFT, LTD IN DEFENDANT PRATT & WHITNEY CANADA'S REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ORDER AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT to be served by electronically filing the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following addresses:

Jon A. Kodani Jeff Williams Law Offices of Jon A. Kodani [email protected] Thomas Byrne Byrne, Kiely & White LLP [email protected]

__s/ Robert Schultz__________ Law Offices of Robert B. Schultz [email protected]