KidEpoxy

RE: What has my AMA become

When you cant defend yourself from a lawsuit saying you libelously slander competition,
what kind of org does that make you?
Is that the kind of org members wanted AMA to have become?

What...
is this where AMA filing suit against SFA comes into play?
You know, the heart attack inducing, business crushing suit filed by the AMA against the only competing organization.... just like Skypilot aluded to in his first mention of lawsuits.

Maybe what AMA nees is to get hot coffe spilled on it for a quick $6mil

PlaneKrazee

My Feedback: (14)

Kid,

Easy does it. I would like to get the full story, from both sides and then from the court documents. I'm sure it would take several days, possibly weeks of reading briefs, testimony, facts and findings to make an unbiased informed assement.

I know my regional AMA rep Andy is truely one of the nicest guys there is and does everything he can to support the hobby and many of the folks at the ama headquarters are also very nice. So, in other words, the orginization is not all bad. It's just become too heavy to operate properly. Many museums have a staff of volunteers and conservatively paid employees. How many workers at the ama museum are volunteers?

How long before the AMA sells off our 72 mhz frequencies? They're worth multi millions.

KidEpoxy

[8D]

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

Then do what with it?

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

Since when in the judicial system does a settlement constitute a win? How many times do people file lawsuits only for the quick and partial settlement? Most? How many civil cases actually make it all the way through the system? Less then 10%. But either way the amount the SFA received from the AMA couldn't have been much of a windfall. Wasn't enough to keep his privately held company afloat. Seems to me if anyone is a winner, that would be the AMA.

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

SFA/AMA Lawsuit Update AMA National Newsletter October 1993

As most are already aware, the AMA is currently involved in a lawsuit that was filed late last summer. Inquiries about the suit have been made from time to time by AMA members. Often asked are the questions "Why is the suit still pending?" and "Why is it the parties cannot settle their differences?" It has been the policy of the AMA to avoid commentary regarding specific details of the litigation upon instructions from our attorneys. That policy must, of legal necessity, continue in effect. However, we have been advised it would be appropriate to publish a status report. Therefore, we are responding to the most frequently voiced questions.

Mediation: At the request of the AMA, the parties met face-to-face this past June in an effort to see whether the differences could be ironed out with the assistance of a court-appointed mediator. Talks broke down when SFA refused to abandon its position that any resolution would require the AMA to pay it several million dollars.

Subsequent events: Following the mediation, SFA retained new lawyers and petitioned the trial judge to appoint a private attorney who would charge the parties $250 an hour to resolve procedural disputes that would otherwise be handled by the judge. Lawyers for both sides then became very active in preparation for an August hearing that was scheduled to be held on a motion for temporary relief filed by SFA. The hearing did not occur, however, because SFA's attorneys decided at the last moment not to go forward.

Legal expenses: The AMA (as well as the AMA officials and employees who have also been sued by SFA) are being defended in this case under a policy of insurance issued by Aetna. However, prior to the insurance company's decision to defend the suit, AMA had to assume the burden, which has amounted to over $100,000.

Trial date: The case is scheduled for trial by jury in Dallas County, Texas, on April 12, 1994. The court in which the case is pending schedules many cases for trial on the same day, so there is no way to know whether this case will be tried as scheduled or whether some other case will end up being selected for trial in its place.

The leadership of AMA knows only too well that the business of advancing our hobby is not served by expensive legal battles of both time and money. The number of hours AMA employees have had to devote to this has been substantial and resulted in slowing service to clubs and individuals in certain areas.

What interests of the AMA and its members can possibly be served by paying millions of your dollars that aren't owed, just to terminate a battle with someone else who will otherwise keep on fighting? This is the situation the AMA now finds itself in, which means that barring a radical about-face in the SFA's position, this case is destined to see the inside of a courtroom.

SFA Lawsuit Update January 1996

Sport Flyers Association has settled its lawsuit against the AMA. AMA has been advised by its commercial liability insurance carrier that the carrier's own negotiations with SFA have resulted in an agreement under which the carrier will pay SFA an undisclosed sum of money as a means of cutting off additional fees
and costs in handling AMA's defense. The agreement does not address the counterclaims asserted by AMA against SFA. Also, while the dollar amount of the settlement is unknown because SFA refused to settle unless the insurance carrier agreed not to disclose it to AMA officials, AMA has been informed that the amount of the settlement represents only a fraction of the $350,000 or more which SFA has incurred in legal fees throughout the litigation of this case.
AMA's commercial liability insurance is separate insurance that is provided by a different carrier than the insurance coverage which is provided to AMA's members, clubs, and site owners. The terms of AMA's liability insurance coverage provided its carrier with the right to enter into agreement without regard to AMA's position or its counterclaim. It appears that the carrier chose to exercise that right because it was cheaper than continuing to pay AMA's lawyer fees in defense of the case, not because of any merit to SFA's claims. In fact, the Federal Court Judge presiding over this case has already dismissed several of SFA's claims and entered judgement in favor of AMA as to various others, including SFA's claims for alleged violations of the antitrust laws.
SFA's willingness to give up now on any remaining claims may be explained simply by a desire to claim victory before those claims are also resolved against it. Certainly, if SFA believed the claims against AMA had merit, it would not agree to release them without an agreement by AMA to release the counterclaims that it has asserted.

SFA's Actions During This Lawsuit

Any representations by SFA as to the reasons for settlement of its claims against AMA should also be measured against a host of facts that AMA has not publicized before now because of the pending lawsuit. Court records will show, for example, that SFA is now on the fourth set of lawyers to represent it in the litigation. They will further reflect that SFA's abuses of the legal process have been so numerous that fines and penalties have been imposed upon it by the court and that a federal magistrate judge even made a formal recommendation that all of SFA's claims be dismissed due to such abuses. Government records will also reflect that SFA never filed a federal tax return and that its failure to pay corporate franchise taxes to the state of Texas in 1994 resulted in a revocation of its corporate charter during 1995. By settling its claims for a fraction of its legal expenses, SFA certainly cannot claim a victory from a monetary standpoint. Any claim that it has achieved a symbolic victory is also misplaced, since its pursuit of legal action has accomplished nothing positive for our sport or its participants and its settlement is no reflection of whether
or not its claims had merit. SFA filed a lawsuit and accused AMA of numerous bad acts which it did not and could not prove. At the same time, SFA engaged in a campaign to compete with AMA which was based on numerous false and misleading statements by SFA about the benefits offered by both organizations. In response, AMA has filed a countersuit which seeks to recover damages caused by SFA's false and misleading statements and for attorneys fees which AMA and its insurance carrier have been forced to incur in this case. AMA's decision to continue its pursuit of this counterclaim in the suit commenced by SFA is based on a strong belief that AMA should be compensated for damages, and that the SFA should be held accountable.


Date: March 18, 1997

JUDGMENT IN LAWSUIT AGAINST SFA

Litigation in the United States District Court in Dallas County, Texas
between AMA and SFA has been concluded by entry of a consent judgment in
favor of AMA against SFA pursuant to which SFA is obligated to compensate
AMA for attorneys' fees incurred by AMA in connection with prosecution of
its claims against SFA. The consent judgment also enjoins SFA from engaging
in negative advertising directed at AMA.

SFA made the business decision to accept this consent judgment in order
to end the accrual of attorneys' fees, the attendant distraction from its
core business, and the attendant devotion of its resources, both human and
otherwise, to this litigation. Resolution of the lawsuit also involves an
understanding that neither AMA nor SFA will further comment on the terms of
the consent judgment or circumstances leading to its entry.



May 1999

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION


ACADEMY OF MODEL AERONAUTICS, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
SPORT FLYERS OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL., Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Before the Court is the Notice of Motion to Vacate Default Judgment, filed by Defendants Sport Flyers of America, Inc., and Elliott Janss. The Court construes the Notice as a motion, although it does not contain a supporting brief. After considering the motion and Plaintiff’s response, the Court is of the opinion that the motion should be denied.

On February 5, 1999, the Court entered a final default judgment against Defendants. The Court found that Defendants’ agent for service was served with summons and complaint on December 2, 1998, and that Defendants had not answered or otherwise pleaded.

The Court also found from the uncontroverted facts that, in March 1997, Plaintiff Academy of Model Aeronautics, Inc., and an entity known as Sport Flyers Association, Inc., entered into a consent judgment under which Sport Flyers Association was to pay AMA scheduled payments totaling $124,000 plus post-judgment interest over a three year term ending December 1, 1999. The judgment provided that failure to make any required payment entitled AMA to accelerate the indebtedness and execute the judgment. AMA has not received any payments under the terms of the judgment.

The uncontroverted facts also established that Sport Flyers Association was stripped of its assets, and its principals disappeared from Texas. However, Sport Flyers of America, Inc., operated by Defendant Elliott Janss, continued the business affairs of Sport Flyers Association with the same membership, the same operational procedures, and the same insurance policy as Sport Flyers Association, but free from its former liabilities under the judgment.

From the uncontroverted evidence, the Court found that Sport Flyers of America is a continuation of Sport Flyers Association and that AMA’s evidence was sufficient to support entry of default judgment in favor of AMA in the amount of $124,000, plus post-judgment interest. The Court also awarded AMA reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount of $28,961.75 Along with $6,549.08 for expenses.

In the instant motion, Defendants move the Court to vacate the default judgment on the grounds that they were not properly served and for reasons of good cause and excusable neglect. In support of the motion, Defendants have filed the Certification of Elliott Janss.

First, Defendants argue that they were not properly served with summons and complaint because AMA served the Texas Secretary of State under the Texas Long Arm Statute. Defendants contend that the Secretary is not their agent for service because they have never done business in Texas. However, Defendants admit that they received a copy of the pleadings from the Secretary.

Section 17.044(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides:

The secretary of state is an agent for service of process on a nonresident who engages in business in this state, but does not maintain a regular place of business in this state or a designated agent for service of process, in any proceeding that arises out of the business done in this state and to which the nonresident is a party.

Thus, the Secretary of State’s certificate is conclusive evidence that the Secretary, as an agent for the defendant, received service of process for the defendant and forwarded the service as required by statute. See Capitol Brick, Inc. v. Fleming Mgf. Co., 722 S.W.2d 399, 401 (Tex. 1986). Moreover, service is complete when the Secretary is served, not when the defendant received notice. See Whitney v. L & L Rlty. Corp., 500 S.W.2d 94, 96 (Tex. 1973).

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT


In support of the argument that AMA improperly served the Secretary as Defendants' agent, the Certification of Elliott Janss states that Sports Flyers of America does not operate in Texas and does not maintain an office in Texas. Janss further states that he never had an office in Texas and that he never did business in Texas. In response to Janss’s assertions, AMA has provided the Court with deposition testimony and bank records, which indicate that Defendants did conduct business in Texas. However, Defendants have not filed a reply to AMA’s response and have not attempted to refute this evidence. Therefore, the Court has nothing more than Janss's conclusory statements that Defendants were improperly served under the Texas Long Arm Statute.

Furthermore, the objective of the Texas Long Arm Statute is to provide reasonable notice of the suit and an opportunity to be heard. See Leedo Cabinetry v. James Sales & Distribution, Inc., 157 F.3d 410, 413 (5th Cir. 1998)(citing Barnes v. Frost Nat’l Bank, 840 S.W.2d 747, 750 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1992, no writ)). Because

Defendants admit receiving a copy of the summons and complaint in this case, there is no question that they were given notice of the lawsuit and an opportunity to be heard. Under these circumstances, the Court finds no basis for setting aside the default judgment on the basis of Defendants’ unsupported contention that they were improperly served.

Defendants also move the Court to vacate the default judgment on the basis of good cause and excusable neglect. Courts generally look to three criteria to determine whether to vacate a default judgment: (1) whether the default was willful, (2) whether setting aside the judgment will prejudice the adversary, and (3) whether the defendant presented a meritorious defense. See CJC Holdings, Inc. v. Wright & Lato, Inc., 979 F.2d 60, 64 (5th Cir. 1992). However, the ultimate inquiry is whether the defendant has shown good cause to set aside the judgment. Id.

In the Certification of Elliott Janss, Janss states that he received a certified mailing of the pleadings and that his attorney immediately called AMA’s attorney, asking for an acknowledgment of service for Janss to sign. Janss also states that his attorney never received the acknowledgment of service document and that, because he was undergoing dialysis three times per week, he did not recall when or how papers had been disseminated. However, Janss states that he always understood that he had to be personally served with process.

After consideration, the Court finds that Defendants have not stated good cause to set aside the default judgment. They have presented no evidence of any mistake or inadvertence. Moreover, they admit that they received the summons and complaint, suggesting that they made a conscious decision not to respond to the lawsuit. Therefore, the Court concludes that Defendants willfully did not file an answer in the case or otherwise plead.

Also, the Court finds that AMA will be prejudiced if the default judgment is set aside. This lawsuit arises out of litigation that has been pending since 1992. According to AMA, attempts to enforce the underlying consent judgment have resulted in a search for hidden assets and extensive discovery to gather sufficient facts to bring enforcement proceedings against Janss and Sport Flyers of America. AMA contends that if the default judgment is set aside, Janss will have another opportunity to incorporate in another state, move or hide assets, and otherwise attempt to avoid paying the consent judgment. For these reasons, the Court finds that setting aside the default judgment will prejudice AMA.

Finally, Defendants have not shown that they have a meritorious defense to this lawsuit. They have not provided any facts to suggest that there is a reasonable probability of a different result if the default judgment is set aside. See Moldwood Corp. v. Stutts, 410 F.2d 351, 352 (5th Cir. 1969). The Court has nothing more than Janss’s conclusory statements, which are insufficient to show a meritorious defense. Id. Under these circumstances, Defendants’ motion to set aside the default judgment should be denied.

It is therefore ORDERED that the Notice of Motion to Vacate Default Judgment, filed by Defendants Sport Flyers of America, Inc., and Elliott Janss on March 31, 1999, is denied.

Signed this 20 day of May, 1999.

Robert B. Maloney
U.S. District Judge


August 23, 1999

Judgment In Lawsuit Against Sport Flyers of America, Inc. And Elliott Janss, Jr.


As originally reported in the June, 1997 issue of Model Aviation, AMA
obtained a consent judgment in its favor against Sport Flyers Association,
Inc. After Sport Flyers Association failed to live up to the terms of the
consent judgment, AMA filed suit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, against a new entity called Sport
Flyers of America, Inc., and its owner, Elliott Janss, Jr.

AMA argued that Sport Flyers of America had stripped the assets of Sport
Flyers Association, and that Mr. Janss was continuing the business affairs of
Sport Flyers Association with the same membership, the same operational
procedures, and the same insurance policies as Sport Flyers Association,
while claiming freedom from its former liabilities to AMA under the consent
judgment.

On February 4, 1999 the Court entered a judgment against Sport Flyers of
America and Elliott Janss, Jr. The Court agreed with AMA's claims that
Sport Flyers of America and Mr. Janss fraudulently used Sport Flyers of
America to avoid paying the money Sport Flyers Association owed AMA
under the consent judgment, and awarded $124,000 to AMA. Citing the
complicated nature of the case resulting from the fraudulent actions of Sport
Flyers of America and Mr. Janss, the court also awarded $28,961.75 in
attorneys' fees and $6,549.08 in expenses to AMA.

Sport Flyers of America and Janss then asked the Court to set aside this
judgment. In a five-page opinion dated May 20, 1999 the Court refused to
do so, finding that Mr. Janss and Sport Flyers of America did not present a
meritorious defense to AMA's claims. On June 10, 1999 Mr. Janss filed
bankruptcy, and on June 30, 1999 Sport Flyers of America filed Chapter
11 bankruptcy in U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

"How long before the AMA sells off our 72 mhz frequencies? They're worth multi millions."

AMA can't sell something it doesn't own: the frequencies are "owned" and controlled by the government (FCC) and not the AMA.
The AMA convinced the FCC way back when to allow use to USE the frequencies for models. We never "owned" them.
BRG,
Jon

Live Wire

The old saying give you sole to !!! because your ***** belong to me. Sorry no pollitics allowed

busted2props

My Feedback: (9)

HUH?

bdavison

My Feedback: (1)

Did it ever occur to you that some of us like our DVP's, and the job they have done...and want to keep them because of their past performance. Perhaps the reason nobody ran against the DVP in certain districts is because the Districts members are quite satisfied with the current DVP.
I am quite happy with my current DVP, and even if he was opposed...he would still get my vote to serve another term.

scratchgolfer

I too belonged to the AMA in the good old days and also was proud to display my number on all my planes (in those days you had room for the number ) now it takes a biplane to display all the necessary designations. I was fortunate enought to be able to attend the Nationals when they were held at Naval Air Stations and had many extra benefits as a retired Naval Aviator. I just rejoined as a park flyer so have not seen the beauracratic change. I can't offer suggestions at this time but will join forces for those that can.

Stickbuilder

Scratch,

Welcome back, and thank you for your service. Right now, I have no idea how it will play out, or if anyone will throw a snot slinging, shirt tearing fit if thier DVP runs unopposed, even if they do like him. A good race keeps them honest.

Bill, AMA 4720
Bottom Feeder Brother #1