Click Here to View This Page on Production Frontend
Click Here to Export Node Content
Click Here to View Printer-Friendly Version (Raw Backend)
Note: front-end display has links to styled print versions.
Content Node ID: 381261
More than five years after Lux Air was forcibly removed from its position as the sole FBO services provider at Arizona’s Yuma County International Airport, and following several attempts at settlement and mediation, the company's lawsuit against the airport authority, scheduled to commence last week, will be on hold at least until September. The new delay is based on Yuma County Superior Court scheduling conflicts. The FBO operator is seeking more than $100 million in damages, claiming the authority violated the terms of its 30-year lease.
Lux Air was evicted by armed guards on Oct. 23, 2009, for falling behind in its rent payments. According to the FBO, it had an agreement with the authority as to when it would make full payment, and the eviction occurred before that date without any prior warning or default notice. As part of its initial lease agreement, the service provider had agreed to build a new $2.5 million FBO building, but in documents filed with the court, claims it was stymied in its efforts by the airport’s delays in completing paperwork tying its leased plots together as well as filing for a sewer abandonment.
At the time of its eviction, the FBO was operating out of an old hangar structure at the airport. The confiscated facility was then refurbished by the authority and turned over to another FBO operator under a different rent structure. The airport authority has a countersuit in place to collect what it describes as nearly $1 million in damages from the alleged breach of lease. So far there have been at least six continuances of the trial date. An earlier summary judgment by the court eliminated the possibility of the FBO operator's collecting any damages stemming from two 10-year extension options Lux Air held on the leasehold. An attorney for the airport authority declined to comment on the pending litigation.