CJ-2020-1030 - Logistic Air, Inc. v. SEMR HK LIMITED D/B/A SEMR AEROSPACE

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: this isn’t some backyard garage sale where someone pocketed your vintage lava lamp and ghosted you. No. This is aviation drama. We’re talking about three Boeing 747s, a mountain of jet engines, and a $600,000 down payment that allegedly vanished into the international void like a plane flying off radar—except this time, someone’s suing to bring it back with punitive damages and a jury trial. Welcome to the high-stakes, low-morals world of airplane parts, shady handshakes, and a contract so broken it might need its own salvage operation.

Meet Logistic Air, Inc.—a Nevada-based company that, in 2017, owned a literal fleet of grounded aviation gold sitting at Senai International Airport in Malaysia. We’re not just talking about a couple of spare tires here. We’re talking three Boeing 747s, 14 jet engines (some with duplicate serial numbers, which, sure, let’s just file that under “weird but not our problem yet”), three auxiliary power units, and two fully stocked warehouse units. If you’re into airplane graveyards, this was the promised land. If you’re into liquidating assets for profit, this was your dream inventory. And that’s exactly why Logistic Air called in the cavalry: SEMR HK LIMITED, also known as SEMR Aerospace, a Hong Kong-based company that claims to specialize in dismantling and salvaging aircraft. Sounds like a match made in aviation heaven, right? More like a match made in contractual hell.

The deal went down on June 3, 2017. Logistic Air and SEMR signed a Dismantling Services Agreement—basically a “you help us strip these planes, sell the parts, and we’ll split the profits” kind of deal. SEMR was supposed to use its expertise to maximize returns, and in exchange, Logistic paid them $600,000 upfront. That’s not a deposit. That’s not a “let’s see how this goes.” That’s a six-figure trust fall—and boy, did SEMR allegedly drop it. According to the lawsuit, within weeks of receiving the money, SEMR took possession of the entire stash—planes, engines, warehouse contents—and registered it all under their own name, with zero regard for Logistic Air’s ownership. Then, between 2017 and 2018, SEMR allegedly started selling off the goods—scrap metal, engines, who knows what else—to third parties, including a company in California called Monico Alloys. The kicker? Logistic Air says they had no idea any of this was happening until February 2018, when they finally did their own digging and realized their $600,000 and their fleet had basically been hijacked. Not just mismanaged. Not just delayed. Vanished. And SEMR? Radio silent. No reports. No profits shared. No explanation. Just crickets.

So why are we in Oklahoma County District Court, thousands of miles from Malaysia and Hong Kong? Because the contract said so. Buried in the fine print—Section 16.4, to be exact—was a clause stating that if arbitration failed, the dispute would be litigated in Oklahoma courts. And since SEMR allegedly refused to even engage in arbitration, Logistic Air said, “Fine. Let’s go full courtroom drama.” They’re suing for breach of contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment—three legal grenades tossed at SEMR’s doorstep. The breach of contract claim is straightforward: you took our money and our planes, promised to work with us, and then ghosted us while selling everything behind our backs. Fraud? That’s the spicy one. Logistic Air claims SEMR never intended to honor the agreement from the start—that CEO Wesley Payne and his crew signed the contract with the sole purpose of swindling them out of the $600,000 and the aircraft. Classic bait-and-switch, but with jumbo jets instead of used cars. And unjust enrichment? That’s the legal way of saying, “You got rich off our stuff without paying us—give it back.”

Now, let’s talk money. Logistic Air is demanding at least $600,000 in damages for the breach of contract. Another $600,000 for fraud. That’s a million two if you’re scoring at home. And they want punitive damages on top of that—meaning they’re not just asking to be made whole, they want to punish SEMR for what they see as intentional, reckless, or downright evil behavior. Is $600,000 a lot for a down payment on aircraft dismantling? In aviation salvage? Honestly, not really. These are 747s we’re talking about—each engine alone can fetch hundreds of thousands. So losing the entire package plus the upfront fee? That’s not just a bad business decision. That’s a financial hemorrhage. And while we don’t know the full resale value of what was allegedly sold, the fact that SEMR allegedly moved metals to a California alloy company in 2018 suggests they weren’t just sitting on the inventory. They were liquidating it.

Here’s the part that makes us, the peanut gallery, raise an eyebrow: the audacity. Not just taking the money and running—but doing it in a way that required layers of deception. Registering someone else’s multi-million-dollar aviation assets under your own name? That’s not a clerical error. That’s a heist. And doing it across international borders, in a country where enforcement might be tricky, with a paper trail that leads to Hong Kong and Malaysia? That’s the kind of move you see in a corporate thriller, not a civil filing from Oklahoma County. And yet, here we are. The most absurd part? The contract actually anticipated disputes and built in a resolution path—arbitration, then Oklahoma courts. SEMR didn’t just break the deal; they broke it by the book, then refused to follow the book’s instructions. It’s like robbing a bank and leaving the vault open with a note that says, “Per our agreement, I was supposed to return the money. I didn’t. Sue me.” Oh wait—they did get sued. And now, Oklahoma—home of the FAA’s headquarters, apparently—is the unlikely stage for this international salvage saga.

Are we rooting for Logistic Air? Honestly, yes. Not because they’re saints—we don’t know that. But because the allegations, if proven, paint a picture of a company that didn’t just fail to perform—it allegedly orchestrated a fraud so blatant it borders on cartoonish. And while we’re not saying SEMR is guilty—this is alleged, remember—we’re saying if this were a movie, the villain would be wearing a leather jacket and monologuing about supply chain arbitrage. At the very least, we’re rooting for clarity. For someone to explain what happened to those 747s. For someone to account for that $600,000. And for Oklahoma County to remind the world that even in the wild, Wild West of international aircraft salvage, contracts still mean something. Or at least, they should.

Case Overview

Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

Oklahoma County District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Daniel V. Carsey

Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable, Golden & Nelson, P.C.

Relief Sought

$600,000 Monetary

$1 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Logistic Air, Inc. business
Rep: Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable, Golden & Nelson, P.C.

Defendants

SEMR HK LIMITED D/B/A SEMR AEROSPACE business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Contract	Failure to perform obligations under the Dismantling Services Agreement
2	Fraud	Making false representations to induce Logistic to trust and pursue a contractual relationship
3	Unjust Enrichment	SEMR's intentional and wrongful acts were made solely for its own benefit

Petition Text

1,486 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA LOGISTIC AIR, INC., Plaintiff, v. SEMR HK LIMITED D/B/A SEMR AEROSPACE, a foreign company registered in Hong Kong, Defendant. PETITION COMES NOW Plaintiff Logistic Air, Inc. and, by and through its counsel of record, states and alleges its claims against Defendant SEMR HK LIMITED as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Logistic Air, Inc. is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business located in Fernley, Nevada ("Logistic"). 2. SEMR HK LIMITED, also doing business as SEMR Aerospace, is a Hong Kong corporation with its registered office at 317, 3/F, Shui On Centre, 6-8 Harbour Road, Wanchai, Hong Kong ("SEMR"). JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This is an action arising from SEMR's breach of contract and fraud that occurred with regard to the Dismantling Services Agreement executed between the parties on or about June 3, 2017 (the "Agreement"). A true and correct copy of the Agreement is attached as Exhibit "A" hereto. 4. Upon information and belief, this action is appropriate before this Court pursuant to the dispute resolution provisions of the Agreement. More specifically, the Agreement expressly states: In the event that the parties are unable to come to a mutually binding agreement at the conclusion of the Arbitration process, then they shall litigate the matter in the courts of Oklahoma. See Agreement, Exh. A, §16.4. Having expressly made demands for arbitration on SEMR and SEMR having refused to do so, Logistic finds SEMR to be in further breach of the Agreement and has filed this action accordingly. Furthermore, this Court is appropriate to hear this matter because the Agreement is to be governed by Oklahoma law, the parties have consented to the Court’s jurisdiction, and Oklahoma County is the headquarters for the Federal Aviation Administration. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction over the parties herein, subject matter jurisdiction, and venue is proper in Oklahoma County. BACKGROUND AND FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS 5. In 2017, Logistic owned the following aviation assets which were situated at the Senai International Airport at 81250 Johor Bahru, Johor Darul Ta’zim, Malaysia ("SIA"): a. 3 Boeing 747 aircraft bearing Manufacturer Serial Numbers 22067, 23150 and 19650; b. 14 engines bearing serial numbers 685995, 685681, 685766, 685927, 685768, 685709, 686014, 686040, 662811, 685706, 685988, 685988, 685961, 685940 and 686084; c. 3 Aircraft Auxiliary Power Unit bearing Manufacturer Serial Numbers 37721, 38268 and 37981; and d. Complete content of two Warehouse units located at SIA. (collectively, the "Subject Property"). 6. On or about June 3, 2017, the Parties executed the Agreement. 7. Under the Agreement, Logistic and SEMR were to work together in order to sell the Subject Property to generate as much profit as possible and, in particular, SEMR was to provide its expertise and aviation salvage services as defined under the Agreement. 8. Pursuant to the Agreement, Logistic had paid $600,000.00 (USD) to SEMR by June 23, 2017 in order for SEMR to take possession of the Subject Property at SIA and begin dismantling, disposing of, and selling the same (the “Logistic Funds”). 9. On or about June 23, 2017, upon information and belief, and unbeknownst to Logistic at the time, SEMR had taken possession of the Subject Property under SEMR’s own name without regard or reservation to Logistic’s ownership interest in the Subject Property, or Logistic’s rights and interests under the Agreement. 10. Upon information and belief, SEMR engaged in selling and had sold some, if not all, of the Subject Property to third parties between June 2017 and present date. The latest instance that Logistic is aware of is believed to have been a sale of metals to Monico Alloys, Inc. in Rancho Dominguez, California in 2018. 11. Upon further information and belief, SEMR used the Logistic Funds to aid in the removal of the Subject Property from SIA and engaged in several transactions thereafter for its own profit to the detriment of Logistic at all relevant times related hereto. 12. By its acts and omissions, SEMR failed to perform its obligations under the Agreement and, therefore, breached the terms of the Agreement. 13. On or about February 21, 2018, Logistic through its own investigation further uncovered that these wrongful acts and omissions of SEMR were fraudulent and were done in a fraudulent manner irrespective of the Agreement. 14. Due to the wrongful acts and omissions of SEMR, Logistic suffered and continues to suffer economic damages, business loss, opportunity loss, lost income, and future lost income, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF CONTRACT 15. Logistic adopts and incorporates by reference all allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 14 above. 16. SEMR used the Agreement to extract $600,000.00 from Logistic for the services it was supposed to render. 17. Due to SEMR’s breach of the Agreement, Logistic incurred losses in excess of $600,000.00 – including but limited to the loss of the Subject Property and the Logistic Funds, exclusive of interest, attorney’s fees and costs. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: FRAUD 18. Logistic adopts and incorporates by reference all allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 17 above. 19. In early 2017, Logistic informed SEMR they were seeking SEMR’s assistance with regard to the Subject Property at the SIA, signed the Agreement, and paid $600,000.00 to SEMR to provide aviation salvage services and, in exchange, SEMR represented it would provide such assistance for Logistic at SIA. 20. After execution of the Agreement and having transferred the Logistic Funds, however, upon information and belief, SEMR wrongfully proceeded to take the Logistic Funds for its own profit and gain without any notice to, or regard for, Logistic’s right, title and interest in the Subject Property and under the Agreement. 21. Upon further information and belief, SEMR entered into the Agreement with the wrongful intent of never performing its obligations and instead wrongfully took possession of the Subject Property to sell to third parties in the aviation industry to the detriment of Logistic. 22. SEMR intentionally and willfully, by and through its CEO Wesley Payne, made false representations related to it acts and omissions with the sole intent of inducing Logistic to trust and pursue a contractual relationship with SEMR. 23. Logistic relied upon SEMR’s false and misleading representations, in addition to SEMR’s deceitful omissions, which induced Logistic to become SEMR’s client and trust SEMR had its best interest in mind at all times. 24. As a result of its material and false representations to Logistic, SEMR intentionally and wrongfully obtained the Logistic Funds and the Subject Property from Logistic. 25. SEMR’s fraudulent scheme, along with its misconduct of not informing Logistic of its wrongful acts, without any authority from Logistic, caused Logistic to incur damages in excess of $600,000.00. 26. But for SEMR’s intentional fraud and deceit, by and through its wrongful acts and omissions, Logistic would not have become a client of SEMR nor entrusted the Logistic Funds or Subject Property to SEMR. 27. By SEMR’s fraudulent misconduct, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount exceeding $600,000.00 – including but limited to the loss of the Subject Property and the Logistic Funds, exclusive of interest, attorney’s fees and costs. REQUEST FOR RECOVERY OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES 28. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference all allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 27 above. 29. Because the acts and omissions by SEMR were intentional or, at least, in reckless disregard of Logistic’s rights, Logistic is entitled to punitive damages as provided under Title 23, Oklahoma Statutes, Section 9.1, and request an award of such exemplary damages against SEMR in accordance with the proof at the time of trial. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: UNJUST ENRICHMENT 30. Logistic adopts and incorporates by reference all allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 29 above. 31. SEMR made representations and engaged in wrongful conduct solely for its own benefit. 32. SEMR’s intentional and wrongful acts were made without Logistic’s knowledge, or in reliance upon SEMR’s false representation that SEMR would perform its obligations under the Agreement. 33. SEMR did, and would continue to, unfairly benefit from its wrongful conduct if no restitution was made to Logistic. 34. Consequently, SEMR has been unjustly enriched, and Logistic requests restitution for the Logistic Funds and Subject Property accordingly. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 35. Logistic demands a jury trial. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff, Logistic Air, Inc., respectfully prays for the Court to: A. Grant judgment in favor of Plaintiff Logistic Air, Inc. against Defendant SEMR HK LIMITED; B. Award Plaintiff an amount exceeding SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS and 00/100 CENTS ($600,000.00), the amount Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant’s breach of the Agreement; C. Award Plaintiff an amount exceeding SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS and 00/100 CENTS ($600,000.00), the amount Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant’s wrongful acts and omissions D. Award punitive damages against Defendant in favor of Plaintiff; E. Award Plaintiff prejudgment and post-judgment interest to the fullest extent of the law; F. Award Plaintiff costs including but not limited to court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees; and G. Grant any such other relief as the Plaintiffs may be entitled to at law or in equity. Respectfully submitted, [signature] Daniel V. Carsey (OBA No. 21490) Jacqueline M. McCormick (OBA No. 31640) Of the firm: HALL, ESTILL, HARDWICK, GABLE, GOLDEN & NELSON, P.C. 100 North Broadway, Suite 2900 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 553-2313 Facsimile: (405) 553-2855 [email protected] [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF