With each lawsuit – this is at least the seventh Private Jet Card Comparisons has tracked – the stories about JetSmarter’s sales tactics get more troubling. Even as management was pivoting its model of paid annual memberships in return for the ability to book free seats on scheduled private jet shuttles, its sales team was continuing “high-pressure” tactics trying to push even more expensive memberships while telling the media that it was focusing on more accessible pricing.
On March 26, 2018, in an interview with Private Jet Card Comparisons CEO Sergey Petrossov was trumpeting new lower membership costs while promising members in its old program would continue to enjoy the benefits they had paid for.
He told us, “We are lowering the fee of entry for new members to democratize the access point even more. Annual membership is now $4,950 plus a $3,000 initiation fee. These new members will pay more per seat than (existing) SMART members do now. The plan is to open up access to more people that fly even a few times per year versus more frequent fliers that are joining today with SMART membership for $15,000. Existing SMART members are not affected by this and keep their old membership with better pricing and perks.”
We then turned to ask, “Does SOPHISTICATED stay at 45k?”
Petrossov told us, “Sophisticated is $50,000 and has been that way for a while. We are making it more private and won’t be advertising as much to make it more exclusive. We are continuously expanding the service and features.”
According to a lawsuit filed last week in the United States District Court Southern District of Florida by Sheri Laine and Gary Seidler on March 29, 2018, they received an email from JetSmarter that this would be their “Last chance to become a founding JetSmarter member.” The company was founded in 2012. The each bought in for the SMART membership paying a combined $30,000.
They were told by joining they would still be able to get free seats for flights under three hours even as the private jet-sharing service, what until then had been a core benefit. From that point, they were hit with multiple approaches to upgrade to the SOPHISTICATED membership with offers to pay $97,500 for three years through mid-June, although they declined.
They were able to take one flight on their SMART memberships and then as others found out the number of scheduled flights with free seats SMART had dwindled to apparently nil. According to the lawsuit, “ However, in the mid-summer of 2018, Defendants reported to Plaintiff that the benefits they had just purchased would no longer be available to Plaintiffs and that all future flights would require payment by Plaintiffs – thus undermining the very essence of the“membership.” Plaintiff did avail themselves of Defendants’ services once thereafter but was required to pay for that flight.”
In early October, the plaintiffs, unable to get a refund, again wrote to JetSmarter, this time stating, “We are an older couple who gave you and your company a significant amount of funding for a promise of travel that you have not fulfilled after your assurance that you would. We are both incredibly disappointed and hope that you can make this better for us.” A further email from Laine on October 19, 2018, stated, “Unfortunately it feels like we have been scammed by you and your company. Please don’t be that person. Hope to hear from you.”
The lawsuit states that the plaintiffs would need to spend nearly $100,000 per month to replicate the benefits they were promised and were not delivered. They are seeking at least $2.2 million in damages.
JetSmarter has recently moved to a model that seems to be based on entirely on crowdsourcing flights, many costing between $1,000 and $5,000 per seat with no free seats available, a far cry from the conditions it was selling membership earlier this year.
In its latest twist, after hawking memberships for $4,950 with a $3,000 initiation fee for its all paid model, JetSmarter now appears to be only selling $2,500 memberships per its website (below).
An attorney not connected with the legal actions said she recommends that in addition to pursuing civil claims unhappy JetSmarter members who believe there was fraud in the way they were sold or renewed memberships should report the company to both the Attorney General in their state as well as the FBI. “From a consumer perspective, it’s very important to ensure that an investigation is also started that would look into criminal activity,” she said.
The most recent JetSmarter lawsuit is below in its entirety:
Case 0:18-cv-62969-BB Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2018 Page 1 of 1
Case 0:18-cv-62969-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2018 Page 1 of 14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
SHERI LAINE AND GARY SEIDLER
Plaintiff, Civil Action No.
against
JETSMARTER, INC., DAVID M. SHERIDAN
and JOHN DOES 1 – 4
COMPLAINT and
Defendants JURY DEMAND
————————————x
Plaintiffs Sheri Laine (“Plaintiff” or “Laine”) and Gary Seidler (“Seidler”)
(“collectively “Plaintiff”), by way of complaint against Defendants Jetsmarter, Inc., David
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
this action seeks monetary damages resulting from the Defendants’ actions in an amount
exceeding $75,000.00, and there is complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and
all Defendants.
1391(b)(2), as Defendants’ principal place of business is in Fort Lauderdale, Florida and a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim were initiated and
Case 0:18-cv-62969-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2018 Page 2 of 14
occurred here, including the marketing, advertising and trade practices at issue.
PARTIES
3 Plaintiffs Laine and Seidler are individuals residing in Del Mar and Santa
Monica, respectively. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Plaintiffs jointly retained
an apartment in London, England. Plaintiffs are each senior citizens as defined by Section
501.2077, Fla. Stat., and Plaintiff Laine requires certain additional accommodations when
traveling.
under the laws of the State of Delaware and is registered to do business in the State of
Florida. Jetsmarter’s world headquarters is located at 500 East Broward Blvd., Fort
Lauderdale, Florida. Jetsmarter markets itself as a company that provides air
transportation as an alternative to commercial carriers and private jet ownership.
Jetsmarter who was assigned the title of Senior Membership Executive.
who developed and approved the marketing and sales materials and may have otherwise
been involve in the fraudulent sales practices made to Plaintiffs.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
member and also having seen the advertising material placed into the marketplace by
2
Case 0:18-cv-62969-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2018 Page 3 of 14
Defendant Jetsmarter about the benefits offered by Jetsmarter, Plaintiffs were contacted by
Jetsmarter’s representative Sheridan. In communications, Defendant Sheridan discussed
various membership options inclusive of the “Smart” and “Sophisticated” membership.
As part of the sale, Plaintiffs were told that the Smart level was being discontinued on April
2, 2018 and that they needed to join prior to that date. In an email of March 29, 2018 to
Plaintiff Laine entitled “Last chance to become a founding JetSmarter member,” she was
again specifically informed by Defendant Sheridan that she needed to join “this week to
take advantage of complimentary seats on select flights under three hours.”[emphasis
supplied].
“membership” was a prepaid program which would permit the “member” the right to fly to
locations within three hours of the departing city without cost to the member. The
Sophisticated level, again prepaid, provided enhanced privileges such as advanced
notification of flights, extended free flights and other discounts and benefits.
their needs and on March 31, 2018, they charged $30,000.00 to their credit card. However,
despite already informing Plaintiffs that they had until April 2, 2018 to join at the Smart
level, on April 1, 2018 Defendant Sheridan wrote to Plaintiffs and said that he had obtained
“permission for both of you to still execute today as discussed. Today would be the final
day, after that my hands are tied. No pressure just wanted to send a final message.”
3
Case 0:18-cv-62969-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2018 Page 4 of 14
collective conclusion that the Smart level was more than sufficient for Plaintiffs, within
weeks after joining Defendant Sheridan sent an April 25, 2018 email to Plaintiff Laine..
In what indicates to be the start of high pressure attempts to “ratchet-up” the program level,
the email, entitled “Upgrade offer: This week only” provided for an undetailed upgrade for
$85,445.21 (utilizing a credit for the moneys Plaintiff had just paid) for three years or
$35,945.21 for a single year. Plaintiffs rejected this offer making clear to Defendant
Sheridan that they only wanted to stay within their present level.
Defendant Sheridan sent another email to Plaintiff providing her an “exclusive offer” to
upgrade to the Sophisticated level. Again, Plaintiff rejected this “exclusive offer.” As if
this was not enough pressure placed upon this elderly couple, on March 31, 2018,
Defendant Sheridan sent yet another email creating urgency.
Plaintiff an email entitled “Just reviewed your account.” Without explanation of his
reasoning Defendant Sheridan again took efforts to re-sell to Plaintiff the Sophisticated
level for an upfront cost $97,500.00 and stating that in converting the membership Plaintiff
would be a “value that exceeds [her] current spend.” No details were provided as to how
he had reached that conclusion. To put further usual additional pressure on Plaintiffs, the
email closed that she should contact him “before month’s end.” Once more Plaintiff let
Sheridan know that they wished to stay at the level they had just purchased.
4
Case 0:18-cv-62969-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2018 Page 5 of 14
However, in the mid-summer of 2018, Defendants reported to Plaintiff that the benefits
they had just purchased would no longer be available to Plaintiffs and that all future flights
would require payment by Plaintiffs – thus undermining the very essence of the
“membership.” Plaintiff did avail themselves of Defendants’ services once thereafter but
was required to pay for that flight.
services rendered by Defendants, but Defendants have failed and refused to provide the
same.
“Family Membership” which continued to require Plaintiffs to pay for flights, no
arrangement could be reached which provided the promises which were made to induce the
Plaintiffs to buy into the Jetsmarter “membership.” After not having use of the program,
on October 10, 2018, Plaintiff Laine wrote to Defendant Sheridan:
Hello David,
I was so disappointed not to receive a call from you this
morning after making an appt. to speak with you and calling
your office several times during the day. Please reach out to us
as Gary and I are concerned about our account, we are running
out of time and unable to get on flights due to not having a
membership we can use as our 3 hour and under flights were
taken from us after paying you $30,000 to join. Shane offered
us a deal that is not satisfactory or fair. We look forward to
having you help us work this out. We are an older couple who
gave you and your company a significant amount of funding
for a promise of travel that you have not fulfilled after your
assurance that you would. We are both incredibly disappointed
and hope that you can make this better for us.
Thank you,
5
Case 0:18-cv-62969-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2018 Page 6 of 14
Sheri Laine
would look into the issues, a sizeable period of time elapsed without hearing from
Defendant Sheridan, prompting Defendant Laine to send an email dated October 19, 2018:
Hello David,
Gary and I had hoped to hear back from you after our
conversation just last week and your promise to get back to us
within 2 days- regarding your help in assisting us with
Jetsmarter charters under 3 hours.
As Seniors we really believed in your pitch to get free flights
under 3 hours, which is the only reason we joined.
You have promised us 3 times now to get back to us to rectify
the membership.
Please help us to sort this mess out,
Gary is beyond disappointed in your company and your
promises to assist us.
Every salesperson has said the final decision rests with you, yet
you say your team has to get back to you.
Unfortunately it feels like we have been scammed by you and
your company.
Please don’t be that person.
Hope to hear from you.
Sheri Laine
Sheri,
Thank you. I am not avoiding you but waiting on our team to
update me on resolutions. I will not forget about you both.
Thank you again.
6
Case 0:18-cv-62969-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2018 Page 7 of 14
COUNT I
Breach of Contract
exchange for the payment of $30,000.00, Defendant Jetsmarter, through its agent
Defendant Sheridan, agreed to provide certain travel benefits to Plaintiff.
changed by Defendants and Defendants failed to provide to Plaintiff a copy of the contract
after its execution and entry.
one single occasion, Plaintiff came to learn that Defendant Jetsmarter had unilaterally
changed the program and that the program offered to Plaintiffs – and for which they had
purchased – was no longer being offered. Plaintiffs were now required to pay for their
flights.
the services for which they contracted and purchased.
incurred by Plaintiff in order to retain duplicate services, the “benefit of the bargain,” each
Plaintiff would have to pay approximately $98,550.00 per month.
with Plaintiff and caused Plaintiff damages.
7
Case 0:18-cv-62969-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2018 Page 8 of 14
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Sheri Laine and Gary Seidler demand judgment against
defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:
(1) Awarding judgment and damages of no less than $2,200,00.00 sustained by
Plaintiffs, together with pre-judgment interest;
(2) Awarding Plaintiffs Sheri Laine and Gary Seidler her costs and
disbursements and reasonable allowances for the fees of plaintiff’s counsel and
experts, and reimbursement of expenses;
(3) Awarding pre and post judgment interest as permitted by law.
(4) Awarding such other and further relief the Court deems just and equitable.
COUNT II
Violation of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
performance. Common law calls for substantial compliance with the spirit, not just the
letter, of a contract in its performance.
the parties will act in good faith and deal fairly, and that neither party shall do anything that
will have the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party to receive the fruits
of the contract. Defendant Jetsmarter did not act consistent with this principal when it
unilaterally changed the very basis of the agreement entered into with Plaintiffs.
8
Case 0:18-cv-62969-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2018 Page 9 of 14
have suffered damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Sheri Laine and Gary Seidler demand judgment against
defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:
(1) Awarding judgment and damages of no less than $2,200,00.00 sustained by
Plaintiffs, together with pre-judgment interest;
(2) Awarding Plaintiffs Sheri Laine and Gary Seidler her costs and
disbursements and reasonable allowances for the fees of plaintiff’s counsel and
experts, and reimbursement of expenses;
(3) Awarding pre and post-judgment interest as permitted by law.
(4) Awarding such other and further relief the Court deems just and equitable.
COUNT III
Violation of the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
Jetsmarter and Sheridan made an express representation that Plaintiffs’ sole obligation was
to make their payments, in full and in advance, and in exchange therefor they would
receive all of the benefits described to them both verbally and in writing. Defendants
specifically advertised that for flights under three hours in duration a customer would be
able to obtain two seats on its planes with no additional charge. This statement was false.
9
Case 0:18-cv-62969-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2018 Page 10 of 14
persons who will be named after discovery is conducted, and such marketing was approved
by Jetsmarter’s supervisors/officers John Does 3 and 4, also fictional persons who will be
named after discovery is conducted.
Defendants, Plaintiffs came to learn that the programs as sold to them were no longer
available and that they would be required to purchase flights in the future. This, along with
other components of the purchase which vanished, was contrary to the express
representation made by Defendants in their marketing and advertising.
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. As they are each over the age of 60, Plaintiffs
are also defined as “senior citizens” pursuant to Section 501.2077. Fla. Stat.
“trade or commerce” as well as “things of value” as defined in Florida Statute 501.203(8)
and (9) respectively.
advertisement of its services to Plaintiffs, Defendants made misrepresentations and false
promises. Moreover, Defendants’ methods of unilaterally changing the membership
program and thereafter refusing to return the purchase price – and other similar and related
activities – constitute unconscionable practices.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Sheri Laine and Gary Seidler demand judgment against
10
Case 0:18-cv-62969-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2018 Page 11 of 14
defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:
(1) Awarding judgment and damages of no less than $2,200,00.00 sustained by
Plaintiffs, together with pre-judgment interest;
(2) Awarding statutory damages;
(3) Awarding Plaintiffs Sheri Laine and Gary Seidler her costs and
disbursements and reasonable allowances for the fees of plaintiff’s counsel and
experts, and reimbursement of expenses;
(4) Awarding pre and post-judgment interest as permitted by law.
(5) Awarding such other and further relief the Court deems just and equitable.
COUNT IV
Respondeat Superior
Defendant Sheridan to utilize its name in the carrying out of marketing and sales of flight
services.
matter hereof, Defendant Sheridan was acting within the scope of his agency or
employment.
supervise Sheridan which Jetsmarter and John Does 1-4 failed to carry out.
11
Case 0:18-cv-62969-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2018 Page 12 of 14
property to Plaintiffs caused Plaintiffs damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Sheri Laine and Gary Seidler demand judgment against
defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:
(1) Awarding judgment and damages of no less than $2,200,00.00 sustained by
Plaintiffs, together with pre-judgment interest;
(2) Awarding Plaintiffs Sheri Laine and Gary Seidler her costs and
disbursements and reasonable allowances for the fees of plaintiff’s counsel and
experts, and reimbursement of expenses;
(3) Awarding pre and post-judgment interest as permitted by law.
(4) Awarding such other and further relief the Court deems just and equitable.
COUNT V
Fraud
Defendants made material representations about the program which Plaintiffs were
purchasing and that upon prepayment, Plaintiffs would be able to fly on the Jetsmarter
charters within three hours of their departure city without further charge.
significant costs imposed upon them in order to utilize the Jetsmarter services.
12
Case 0:18-cv-62969-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2018 Page 13 of 14
Plaintiffs were false and misleading and that Plaintiffs would rely upon the same.
Jetsmarter paying the amounts quoted to them.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Sheri Laine and Gary Seidler demand judgment against
defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:
(1) Awarding judgment and damages of no less than $2,200,000.00 sustained by
Plaintiffs, together with pre-judgment interest;
(2) Awarding punitive damages;
(3) Awarding Plaintiffs Sheri Laine and Gary Seidler her costs and
disbursements and reasonable allowances for the fees of plaintiff’s counsel and
experts, and reimbursement of expenses;
(4) Awarding pre and post-judgment interest as permitted by law.
(5) Awarding such other and further relief the Court deems just and equitable.
13
Case 0:18-cv-62969-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2018 Page 14 of 14
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Plaintiffs request a jury trial for any and all Counts for which a trial by jury is
permitted by law.
Respectfully submitted this 4 day of December, 2018.
THE LAW OFFICES OF BRUCE E. BALDINGER, LLC
Attorney for Plaintiffs Sheri Laine and Gary Seidler
365 South Street
Morristown, NJ 07960
Tel: (908) 218-0060
By: /s/ Bruce E. Baldinger
Bruce E. Baldinger
Fla. Bar No. 776696
KATZMAN WASSERMAN BENNARDINI
& RUBINSTEIN, P.A.
Attorney for Plaintiff Sheri Laine and Gary Seidler
7900 Glades Road, Suite 140
Boca Raton, FL 33434
Tel: (561) 477-7774
Fax: (561) 477-4774
By: /s/ Steven M. Katzman
Steven M. Katzman
Fla. Bar No. 375861
