United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOCKET NO. 29)
TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN DISTRICT JUDGE.
Unibank for Savings filed this action for breach of, and
enforcement of its rights under, a promissory note executed
by 999 Private Jet, LLC, (“999 Private Jet”),
Edgar Sargsyan (“Mr. Sargsyan”), and Elina
Sargsyan. SBK Holdings USA, Inc. (“Intervenor”),
moved to intervene. (Docket No. 19). The Court granted the
motion, and Intervenor filed a Complaint alleging its
ownership of collateral used to enforce Plaintiff's
rights under the promissory note. (Docket No. 26, 27).
moves for summary judgment on Intervenor's claims.
(Docket No. 29). Because Intervenor has failed to establish a
genuine issue of material fact, Plaintiff's motion is
Court reviews the record in the light most favorable to the
party opposing summary judgment. Santiago-Ramos v.
Centennial P.R. Wireless Corp., 217 F.3d 46, 50 (1st
2013 through July 2016, Mr. Sargsyan was President of, and
legal counsel to, Intervenor. (Docket No. 27 at 2). In 2015,
without Intervenor's knowledge or consent, Mr. Sargsyan
formed Regdalin Aviation (“Regdalin”), of which
he was the Managing Member. (Docket No. 27 at 2).
November 5, 2015, Mr. Sargsyan purchased a Gulfstream
aircraft, Model G IVSP, Serial No. 1315, FAA Registration No.
N999SE (the “Aircraft”) with Intervenor's
funds and transferred ownership to Regdalin. (Docket No. 27
at 2-3). On February 29, 2016, Mr. Sargsyan refinanced the
Aircraft with The Huntington National Bank
(“Huntington”). (Docket No. 30 at 1). As part of
that refinancing, Regdalin granted, and Huntington perfected,
a security interest in the Aircraft. (Docket No. 1).
discovered Mr. Sargsyan's fraud in September 2016.
(Docket No. 27 at 3). Intervenor's current Chief
Executive Officer, Daniel McDyre (“Mr. McDyre”),
contacted the Federal Aviation Administration
(“FAA”) by letter to request a lien of $6, 227,
250 on the Aircraft. (Docket No. 33-1 at 2-3). The FAA filed
this letter in the Aircraft's Suspense File on December
30, 2016. (Docket No. 33-1 at 2-3). Intervenor also filed a
Complaint for Damages in the Los Angeles Superior Court on
February 3, 2017. (Docket No. 27 at 3).
early 2017, Regdalin sought to refinance the Huntington loan.
(Docket No. 30 at 1). As part of the refinancing deal,
Regdalin transferred ownership of the Aircraft to 999 Private
Jet. (Docket No. 30 at 1-2). Representatives from Unibank
allegedly contacted an unspecified employee at SBK in
“in April 2017 or May 2017” to request the
original logbooks for the Aircraft. (Docket No. 33-5 at 3).
Intervenor asserts that, during this call, it informed
Plaintiff that 999 Private Jet lacked legitimate title to the
Aircraft. (Docket No. 33-1 at 4).
4, 2017, to satisfy the balance due on the Huntington loan,
Plaintiff loaned 999 Private Jet, Mr. Sargsyan, and Elina
Sargsyan $4, 348, 334.01, secured by an interest in the
Aircraft. (Docket No. 30 at 2). Plaintiff filed a Form 8050
with the FAA to perfect its interest. (Docket No. 30 at 2).
At the time, the FAA record for the Aircraft included a
forged letter from Intervenor disclaiming all liens on and
claims to the Aircraft. (Docket No. 33-1 at 4).
in June 2018, 999 Private Jet, Mr. Sargsyan, and Elina
Sargsyan failed to make the required monthly loan payments to
Plaintiff. (Docket No. 30 at 2). Plaintiff filed this action
with the Court on August 7, 2018. (Docket No. 1). On
September 7, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion
for a preliminary injunction and authorized Plaintiff to take
possession of the Aircraft. (Docket No. 12). Intervenor moved
to intervene on October 31, 2018. (Docket No. 19). The Court
granted Intervenor's motion on April 1, 2019. (Docket No.
26). Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on Intervenor's
claims on May 9, 2019. (Docket No. 29).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, a court “shall
grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” An issue is
“genuine” when a reasonable factfinder could
resolve it in favor of the nonmoving party. Morris v.
Gov't Dev. Bank of Puerto Rico, 27 F.3d 746, 748
(1st Cir. 1994). A fact is “material” when it may
affect the outcome of the suit. Id. When ruling on a
motion for summary judgment, “the court must view the
facts in the light most favorable to the ...