The plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed August 3, 2018, accusing JetSmarter of fraudulent sales practices have withdrawn their action after the case was referred to arbitration
(August 15, 2018 – The attorney representing the Jacksons tells Private Jet Card Comparisons that the case did not go to arbitration, but was amicably settled. He declined additional comment)
In a filing made today, the attorney representing Kathleen and Ronald Jackson withdrew their claim against JetSmarter seeking at least $250,000 after they said they had been misled by the company. The filing stated, “This matter having been commenced by Plaintiffs through the filing of a Complaint; and no Defendant having filed an Answer or Motion; this action is hereby voluntarily DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro 41(a)(1)(A)(i).” According to a copy of the Civil Docket, the case has been referred to arbitration.
A lawyer not associated with the case said the action could be a result of an arbitration clause in the membership contract with JetSmarter. In Section 18 governing Dispute Resolution, a JetSmarter membership agreement reviewed by Private Jet Card Comparisons states:
Any claim or dispute between the parties and/or against any agent, employee, successor, or assign of the other, whether related to this Agreement, any of the Terms and Conditions, or the relationship or rights or obligations contemplated herein, including the validity of this clause, shall be resolved exclusively by binding arbitration by the American Arbitration Association by a sole arbitrator under the Commercial Arbitration Rules and the Supplementary Procedures for Consumer Related Disputes then in effect, which are deemed to be incorporated herein by reference. The place of arbitration shall be Broward County, Florida. The existence and content of the arbitration proceedings and any rulings or award shall be kept confidential except: (i) to the extent that disclosure may be required of a party to fulfill a legal duty, protect or pursue a legal right, or enforce or challenge an award in bona fide legal proceedings before a state court or other judicial authority, or (ii) with the written consent of all parties. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, either party may disclose matters relating to the arbitration or the arbitration proceedings where necessary for the preparation or presentation of a claim or defense in such arbitration.
Arbitration shall proceed solely on an individual basis without the right for any claims to be arbitrated on a class action basis or on bases involving claims brought in a purported representative capacity on behalf of others. The arbitrator’s authority to resolve and make written awards is limited to claims between Member and JetSmarter alone. Claims may not be joined or consolidated unless agreed to in writing by all parties. No arbitration award or decision will have any preclusive effect as to issues or claims in any dispute with anyone who is not a named party to the arbitration. Notwithstanding any other provision in these terms and conditions and without waiving either party’s right of appeal, if any portion of this “class action waiver and other restrictions” provision is deemed invalid or unenforceable, then the remaining portions of the arbitration provision shall remain in full force and effect.
The lawyer representing the Jacksons did not respond to a request for comment, however, JetSmarter spokesperson Ronn Torossian declined to comment on the action except to note that it was dismissed with prejudice. A court case that is dismissed with prejudice means that it is dismissed permanently and is “over and done with, once and for all, and can’t be brought back to court.”
Torossian did take issue with the articles cited from Peter Maestrales of Airstream Jets we referenced, writing, “(The) Airstream’s articles that you are citing and the link to which you have provided in your article are defamatory and inaccurate and were knowingly published by Airstream with the intent to harm JetSmarter. Circuit Court in Florida has entered a final judgment against Airstream, which is attached, requiring Airstream to remove these articles from its website. Airstream is presently in violation of the court order and will be held in contempt of court if the articles are not removed.”
The attorney not associated with the case said there are a myriad of reasons for the Jacksons to file and be granted the Voluntary Dismissal and said joining a Class Action lawsuit if one were to materialize would be one possibility.