PITTSBURGH – A federal judge has approved a California-based airline’s attempt to obtain interlocutory review from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in a lawsuit filed by a pilot allegedly poisoned by carbon monoxide exposure.
Jeremy Ravotti of Leechburg first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 28, 2018 versus OneJet, Inc. of Larkspur, Calif.
The suit concerned the airplanes’ allegedly defective “bleed air” system, one that regulates the air entering the cabin and cockpit after making contact with the plane’s engines. It can become contaminated with heated jet engine oil and toxic byproducts, increase the temperature throughout the airplane and produce fumes having a “dirty” or “wet sock” smell.
Ravotti was hired by Contour Flight Management as a pilot in January 2016 and began flying OneJet aircrafts in August of that year. In November 2016, the N102NS aircraft suffered from multiple maintenance issues, such as the inability to regulate temperature in the cabin and cockpit and that same smell throughout the aircraft, the suit said.
“As it would later turn out, the temperature issues and odors within the aircraft were caused by problems with, and defects in, their aircraft’s air system, including the engine seal that is used to separate exhaust from the air and air that is pumped in from the atmosphere,” the suit stated.
In January 2017, Ravotti said he was flying the plane from Milwaukee to Pittsburgh and encountered the aforementioned problems. After taking measures to try to control the temperature, Ravotti donned an oxygen mask and goggles – which he said was the last thing he remembered until he woke up in a room at Heritage Valley Hospital in Sewickley, the suit said.
“As it turns out, plaintiff became incoherent, incapacitated and subsequently passed out while attempting to control the temperature in the N102NS aircraft as a result of carbon monoxide and/or organophosphates being present in the cockpit,” the suit stated.
“Plaintiff’s second in command was able to land the aircraft in Pittsburgh and both he and plaintiff were taken to Heritage Valley Hospital where plaintiff was treated for syncope due to carbon monoxide exposure. Subsequent to his discharge from Heritage Valley Hospital, plaintiff went to various physicians (including specialists) and hospitals in January and February 2017 for symptoms that included gray complexion, blue dye being omitted from his pores, head pain, burning sensations, shortness of breath, dizziness and nausea.”
After two months away, Ravotti returned to work but said he suffered continued and recurring symptoms (which needed further medical treatment), since the planes had allegedly not been repaired for the injurious technical issues mentioned in the lawsuit.
After a bankruptcy action caused a 13+ month-long stay of the case, the stay was lifted in March 2020 and Ravotti sought a default judgment due to no response coming in by April 30.
The airline denied the entirety of Ravotti’s claims on June 25 while asserting 29 separate affirmative defenses, including failure to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted and pre-emption by the Federal Aviation Act.
Counsel for OneJet filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on Feb. 8, arguing that the plaintiff’s untimely re-opening of the complaint should lead to its closure by the Court.
“Judge Taddonio’s order lifted and terminated the stay, but the order never annulled it. According to Third Circuit precedent, the order does not have retroactive effect and plaintiff’s complaint remains void…as if it were never filed,” according to the airline’s motion.
“Since it is as if plaintiff’s complaint were never filed, and the statute of limitations on plaintiff’s negligence claim ran during the pendency of bankruptcy proceedings, plaintiff was required to file – or refile – his complaint or otherwise move this Court to reopen the case within 30 days of Judge Taddonio’s order granting plaintiff relief from the stay.”
However, the defendant claimed that Ravotti far exceeded this 30-day time limit.
“Instead, plaintiff waited until Feb. 26, 2020 – 100 days after the entry of Judge Taddonio’s order terminating the stay and 70 days after the 30-day grace period expired – to take any action,” the motion said.
“Plaintiff’s failure to take any action to preserve his claim within the 30-day window provided by the Bankruptcy Code renders his lone negligence claim against OneJet untimely. Counsel for OneJet conferred with counsel for plaintiff about this motion but could not reach an agreement as to the relief requested.”
However, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge W. Scott Hardy rejected the defense’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on July 1.
Hardy found that the Bankruptcy Court did provide Ravotti with retroactive relief and agreed with the plaintiff that he did not need to file new litigation, but instead continue with the instant case.
“Upon review of the Bankruptcy Court’s order, the Court agrees with plaintiff. Had that order stated only that the automatic stay was ‘terminated’ or ‘annulled’ without the Bankruptcy Court providing any further explanation, a fair reading of such order would simply be in accord with the technical meaning of the individual word chosen,” Hardy said.
“However, the Bankruptcy Court ordered not only that the automatic stay was ‘terminated,’ but it also specifically set forth how the District Court case was to proceed: the order expressly permitted plaintiff to ‘continue’ to pursue this particular case that was already pending (and did not order plaintiff to re-file a complaint or take some other action within 30 days in order to do so), and it specified sources from where any judgment that might be obtained in this case could (and could not) come.”
Hardy then overruled the defense’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
“As defendant has cited no authority (nor is any authority apparent to the Court) to support either the proposition that the Bankruptcy Court’s order should not be read in its entirety, or the proposition that only the word ‘annul’ can provide retroactive relief (despite the Bankruptcy Court describing the retroactive relief ordered), the Court concludes that the plain meaning of the Bankruptcy Court’s order is clear and should not be ignored,” Hardy stated.
UPDATE
“OneJet is dissatisfied with the Court’s explanation that the Bankruptcy Court possesses the statutory authority to annul, terminate, modify, or condition an automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. Section 362(d), and that it exercised its authority here, as evidenced by the plain meaning of its order when considered in its entirety, by permitting Ravotti to pursue the litigation pending in the District Court, while limiting his ability to enforce any judgment solely from available insurance proceeds rather than from any asset or property of the bankruptcy estate,” Hardy said.
“OneJet persists in arguing that the Bankruptcy Court’s use of the word ‘terminated’ rather than ‘annulled’ (notwithstanding its additional clarifying text evidencing the exercise of its annulment power) divests it of its statutory authority to lift the stay retroactively. OneJet now asks the Court to certify an interlocutory appeal on this issue.”
Hardy explained that the following criteria must be met for the Court to exercise its discretion to certify its order for an immediate petition for allowance of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: (i) The order must involve a controlling question of law; (ii) It must offer a substantial ground for difference of opinion as to its correctness; and (iii) If appealed immediately, it would materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.
According to Hardy, all three criteria were met.
“Here, the Court’s ruling that the Bankruptcy Court’s order permissibly lifted the stay retroactively pursuant to its authority supplied by 11 U.S.C. Section 362, even though it did not contain the word ‘terminate,’ is serious to the conduct of the litigation in both a practical and legal sense because the opposite ruling likely would have resulted in plaintiff’s claim being time barred and thus dismissed. The ruling thereby presents a controlling question of law for purposes of considering whether to certify it for interlocutory appeal,” Hardy stated.
“Neither the parties, nor the Court on its own initiative, have identified any controlling legal authority determining whether a Bankruptcy Court must expressly use the word ‘annul’ in order to invoke its statutory power to lift an automatic stay retroactively. Accordingly, the Court finds that OneJet has established this factor. The prompt resolution of this retroactivity issue may materially advance the ultimate termination of this litigation.”
Hardy continued by saying that if the Third Circuit “were to reverse the Court’s ruling and find that a Bankruptcy Court may only lift an automatic stay retroactively by using the word ‘anul’ as opposed to other words which convey such an intent, then Ravotti’s sole claim would be time-barred, the need for trial would be eliminated and the ultimate termination of the litigation would be advanced.
“All three requirements for interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) are present. Furthermore, the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, finds this action to be that ‘exceptional case’ justifying certification of its July 1, 2021 order for interlocutory appeal,” Hardy said.
The plaintiff was represented by Michael A. O’Leary and Jason A. Archinaco of The Archinaco Firm, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant was represented by Clem C. Trischler of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, also in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:18-cv-01598
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com