CRAZY CIVIL COURT ← Back
OKLAHOMA COUNTY • CJ-2026-1096

Aeronautical Title and Escrow Service, LLC v. Semirara Mining and Power Corporation

Filed: May 7, 2025
Type: CJ

What's This Case About?

Let’s cut right to the chase: a hundred thousand dollars—yes, one hundred thousand—is currently locked in legal limbo over a jet that never even left the ground. Not because it crashed. Not because it was hijacked by pirates or mistaken for Air Force One. No, this is far more dramatic: it’s trapped in the bureaucratic Bermuda Triangle of international corporate brinksmanship, with a trio of foreign entities all pointing fingers and screaming “Mine!” while an Oklahoma escrow company throws up its hands and says, “I just work here!”

Welcome to Crazy Civil Court, where we cover the legal equivalent of a three-way tug-of-war over a suitcase full of cash—except the suitcase is a $3.1 million Bombardier CRJ-200LR passenger jet, and the rope is a $100,000 deposit that nobody can agree who gets to keep. And yes, Oklahoma is somehow the neutral ground where this transcontinental drama is playing out. Buckle up. This one’s got Dubai, the Philippines, Arizona, and the quiet hum of Oklahoma City’s District Court—all because someone wired some money to the wrong place (or maybe the right place, depending on who you ask).

So who are these people? On one side, we’ve got Aeronautical Title and Escrow Service, LLC, or “AEROtitle” for short—a totally real name that sounds like a startup founded by a guy who watches too much Top Gun. They’re based in Oklahoma County and, as their name suggests, specialize in holding money for aircraft sales. Think of them as the DMV of private jets: nobody wants to deal with them, but if you’re buying or selling a plane, you kinda have to. They’re the neutral middleman, the guy who says, “I’ll hold your deposit until everyone stops yelling.” And right now? They’re yelling internally.

Then there’s the international cast of characters. First up: Executive Aircraft Services, Inc., a Scottsdale, Arizona-based company that was supposed to be the middleman in this whole deal. They weren’t the original owner of the jet, but they were set to buy it from someone else and then flip it to the final buyer—for a cool $3.1 million. Classic aviation hustle. But here’s where it gets twistier: the original seller is Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, which—wait for it—is a Philippine energy company that somehow owns a 2003 Bombardier passenger jet. Yes. A coal mining conglomerate. With a private plane. That’s already giving us “corporate villain origin story” vibes.

And finally, the would-be buyer: CSDS Aircraft Trading FZCO, a company registered in Dubai (FZCO means “Free Zone Company,” for those playing legal bingo at home). These are the folks who allegedly wired the $100,000 deposit and signed off on the technical inspection of the aircraft. They were ready to roll—paperwork signed, jet accepted, money down. But then… crickets. The sale fell apart. And now, that $100,000 is just sitting in an Oklahoma bank account like a cursed artifact.

So what the heck happened? Let’s reconstruct this like we’re on Airplane Crime Scene, a show that doesn’t exist but absolutely should. On May 7, 2025, Executive Aircraft and CSDS signed a purchase agreement: $3.1 million for the Bombardier, with a $100,000 deposit held in escrow by AEROtitle. Standard stuff. Then, on May 21, CSDS’s representative, one Rajita Ariyarathna (and we are 100% naming our next goldfish Rajita), signed the Aircraft Technical Acceptance form, meaning: “Yep, the jet checks out. We’re good to go.” But then—plot twist—the deal collapsed. Why? The filing doesn’t say. Was it financing? A paperwork snafu? Did someone discover the plane was haunted? We may never know. But what we do know is that now, both sides want their money back—or rather, they want to keep it.

Executive Aircraft, as the would-be seller, probably thinks: “Hey, the buyer backed out, so the deposit’s ours.” CSDS, the buyer, likely argues: “We accepted the plane, the seller failed to deliver, so give us our cash back.” And Semirara? Well, they’re the ghost in the machine—technically the original seller to Executive Aircraft, but now somehow tangled in a lawsuit in Oklahoma over a deposit they never touched. It’s like if your landlord got sued because your roommate didn’t pay the security deposit, even though the landlord never saw a dime.

Now, why are they in court? Because AEROtitle—the poor, beleaguered escrow agent—doesn’t want to pick a side. They’re not judges. They’re not lawyers. They’re escrow. Their job was to hold the money and release it when everyone agreed. But now, with multiple parties making competing claims, they’re stuck. If they give the money to one side, the other side might sue them for breach of contract. If they give it to the other side, same problem. So what do they do? They file a lawsuit… against everyone. Yes, you read that right. AEROtitle is suing the very people it’s supposed to pay, in a legal maneuver called interpleader.

Interpleader is basically the judicial version of “I give up, you guys figure it out.” It’s when a neutral third party—like a bank, an insurance company, or an Oklahoma escrow firm—says, “I have money that two (or more) people are fighting over. I don’t know who deserves it. So I’m going to give it to the court, walk away, and let y’all duke it out like legal gladiators.” It’s not about winning the money—it’s about not losing because you picked the wrong winner.

And what do they want? AEROtitle isn’t trying to keep the $100,000. Nope. They just want to hand it over to the court, get reimbursed for their attorney fees (because, yes, they had to hire GableGotwals, a real law firm with real lawyers named Jake Krattiger and Rosa Garner), and be released from any future liability. They want a clean exit. They want immunity. They want to go back to their quiet life of holding deposits for Gulfstreams and saying “per the agreement” in calm, measured tones.

Now, is $100,000 a lot? In most small claims court dramas, that’d be a king’s ransom. But in the world of private jet sales? It’s a rounding error. The plane was worth over $3 million. The deposit is just over 3%. In real estate, that’s a standard earnest money check. In aviation? It’s the price of a fancy catering package for the first flight. But still—$100,000 is not nothing. That’s 20 Tesla Model 3s. That’s a lifetime supply of airport lounge snacks. That’s a lot of in-flight peanuts.

So what’s our take? The most absurd part of this case isn’t the international intrigue, or the fact that a coal company owns a jet, or that Dubai and the Philippines are fighting over cash in Oklahoma. No, the wildest thing is that nobody seems to actually want the plane. They just want the deposit. It’s like two people arguing over who gets to keep the engagement ring after a wedding that never happened—except the ring costs six figures and the breakup involves three continents.

We’re rooting for AEROtitle. Not because they’re heroes. Not because they’re innocent. But because they’re the only ones being honest: “We don’t know what’s going on. We just held the money. Please stop emailing us.” They’re the designated driver of this whole mess, and they just want to go home.

Until then, that $100,000 sits in a bank account in Oklahoma City, collecting dust and earning minimal interest, while lawyers draft motions and corporations play high-stakes chicken. The jet? Probably still sitting on a tarmac somewhere, dreaming of skies it’ll never touch. And the deposit? It might just become the most expensive lesson in “read the fine print” the aviation world has ever seen.

Case Overview

Petition
Jurisdiction
District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma
Relief Sought
Plaintiffs
Claims
# Cause of Action Description
1 Interpleader Dispute over $100,000 deposit for aircraft sale

Petition Text

1,042 words
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA AERONAUTICAL TITLE AND ESCROW SERVICE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. SEMIRARA MINING AND POWER CORPORATION; EXECUTIVE AIRCRAFT SERVICES, INC.; and CSDS AIRCRAFT TRADING FZCO; Defendants. PETITION FOR INTERPLEADER Plaintiff, Aeronautical Title and Escrow Service, LLC ("AEROtitle"), pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2022, submits the following Petition for Interpleader against Defendants Semirara Mining and Power Corporation; Executive Aircraft Services, Inc; and CSDS Aircraft Trading FZCO (collectively, "Defendants"). In support of its Petition, AEROtitle alleges and states: THE PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. AEROtitle is an Oklahoma limited liability company with its principal place of business in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Semirara Mining and Power Corporation ("Seminara") is a foreign corporation with its principal place of business in Makati City, Philippines. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Executive Aircraft Services, Inc. ("Executive Aircraft") is a foreign corporation with its principal place of business in Scottsdale, Arizona. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant CSDS Aircraft Trading FZCO ("CSDS") is a foreign entity with its principal place of business in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. 5. In connection with the intended sale of the Aircraft (defined herein), Defendants engaged in conduct in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, sufficient to establish jurisdiction in this Court, including, but not limited to, directing wire transfers to an account at a bank branch located in Oklahoma County, utilizing an escrow agent located in Oklahoma County, sending agreements, emails, and other correspondence to Oklahoma County, and making claims of ownership on money held in Oklahoma County. 6. Venue in this Court is proper because the funds in dispute are being held in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. BACKGROUND FACTS 7. AEROTitle acted as the escrow agent in connection with a proposed transaction for sale of the following aircraft: One (1) 2003 Bombardier CRJ-200LR Passenger Aircraft, bearing Manufacturer Serial Number (MSN) 7756 (the "Aircraft"), between Executive Aircraft, as Seller, and CSDS, as Buyer. 8. Upon information and belief, the above-described transaction was intended to be a back-to-back sale in which Defendant Executive Aircraft would first purchase the Aircraft from Defendant Semirara (the original seller), and then re-sell the Aircraft to CSDS (the ultimate buyer). 9. In connection with the proposed sale of the Aircraft, Executive Aircraft and CSDS executed that certain Purchase Agreement on or about May 7, 2025 (the “Purchase Agreement”), setting forth terms for the deal. 10. AEROTitle, as escrow agent, acted as neutral third party to the proposed transaction. 11. The Purchase Agreement set the total purchase price for the Aircraft at $3,100,000.00 USD, including a $100,000.00 deposit (the “Deposit”) to be applied towards the purchase price of the Aircraft. 12. Pursuant to the terms of the Purchase Agreement, on or about May 21, 2025, CSDS, as buyer, executed the Aircraft Technical Acceptance, signed by Rajita Ariyarathna. By doing so, CSDS accepted the technical condition of the Aircraft, including its records, in accordance with the terms of the signed Purchase Agreement. 13. After execution of the Purchase Agreement and the Aircraft Technical Acceptance, a dispute arose between the parties, and the sale of the Aircraft was not completed. 14. Now, therefore, AEROTitle still holds the $100,000.00 Deposit in escrow. 15. The parties have been unable to reach an agreement as to the disbursement of the Deposit. 16. Based on the conflicting claims thereto, AEROTitle has not released the Deposit remaining in escrow to either party. 17. AEROTitle now seeks to interplead the $100,000.00 Deposit, to which a dispute has arisen and to which AEROTitle remains a neutral third party. FIRST CLAIM — INTERPLEADER AEROtitle hereby adopts and incorporates by reference all statements and allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 17 of its Petition as if fully set forth herein, and in addition, states: 18. In connection with a proposed transaction for sale of the Aircraft, AEROtitle received funds in the amount of $100,000 to be held in escrow as a deposit. 19. A dispute has now arisen as to the ownership of the Deposit. AEROtitle has received conflicting claims from both Buyer and Seller as to which party is legally entitled to receive the Deposit, or some portion thereof. 20. Each Defendant named herein has claimed—or may reasonably be expected to claim—all or some portion, of the Deposit in AEROtitle’s possession. 21. AEROtitle is now and has at all times been ready and willing to pay the entity legally entitled to the Deposit, but it is unable to do so due to the conflicting claims thereto. 22. AEROtitle cannot disburse the Deposit without assuming responsibility of determining doubtful questions of fact and/or law, and without being subjected to the burden and cost of defending itself in a multitude of suits and the possibility of double or multiple payments in the amount of the Remaining Deposit. 23. In connection with this interpleader action, AEROtitle has been compelled to engage counsel and pay court costs for the purpose of protecting its interests arising out of the conflicting claims set forth above. 24. AEROtitle makes no claim to the Deposit funds and is merely a third-party stakeholder to this transaction. AEROtitle has no interest in the Deposit or in the controversy pending with respect thereto other than recovery of its reasonable costs and legal fees relating to this interpleader action in accordance with 12 O.S. § 2022(C). WHEREFORE, AEROtitle requests that the Court order as follows: A. That AEROtitle is entitled to recover its costs and attorney fees relating to this interpleader action, in accordance with 12 O.S. § 2022(C); B. That AEROtitle shall interplead the balance of the Deposit (minus its attorney fee award) into the registry of the Court; C. That upon payment of the balance of the Deposit by AEROtitle to the Clerk of this Court, or such other place as the Court may direct, that AEROtitle shall be discharged from any further liability to Defendants related to the Aircraft, the Purchase Agreement, or the Deposit; D. That the Court enter an order barring the Defendants from instituting or prosecuting any suit or proceeding against AEROtitle in any state or federal court with regard to the Deposit, a disputed portion or otherwise; and E. For such other and further relief to which AEROtitle may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, [Signature] John M. "Jake" Krattiger, OBA No. 30617 Rosa M. Garner, OBA No. 35613 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: 405-235-5502 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Aeronautical Title and Escrow Service, LLC
Disclaimer: This content is sourced from publicly available court records. Crazy Civil Court is an entertainment platform and does not provide legal advice. We are not lawyers. All information is presented as-is from public filings.