Wire
Florida sales partners get another shot in Textron dispute
Declan Flight and Right Rudder can keep pressing their contract claims against Textron eAviation, but a judge still has to redo the call on where one Mesa-related interference claim belongs.
An aircraft maker’s breakup with two Florida sales partners now turns on where the fight can be heard, not just who may have damaged it. In the federal Eleventh Circuit, judges said the district court used the wrong jurisdiction basis to keep one Mesa-related interference count in federal court, and the claim has to be tested again under the proper rule. The panel did not decide whether Textron eAviation, Inc. interfered with the contracts.
The disputed count was tied to the Mesa Contract. The judges said the lower court erred in relying on Florida’s long-arm statute, and they also rejected the idea that the contract’s forum-selection clause, standing alone, supplied jurisdiction.
A sales network Textron inherited
The dispute grew out of Pipistrel’s U.S. business. Declan Flight, Inc. signed on in 2020 as chief sales representative for a Pipistrel subsidiary in the United States, and Right Rudder Aviation, LLC became an exclusive U.S. distributor in 2021 for another subsidiary. Together, those efforts at one point accounted for up to 90% of Pipistrel’s total sales.
Textron bought Pipistrel in 2022 through Textron eAviation, and the opinion says the company’s promises to keep relying on the plaintiffs did not last. The case centers on alleged tortious interference with three separate contracts tied to that business relationship, with the Mesa-related count now separated from the merits while the jurisdiction question gets a new look.
Why the courtroom matters first
Jurisdiction is not a technical side issue for businesses locked in contract disputes. It decides which court gets to hear the case first, which rules apply, and how much leverage each side has before anyone reaches the substance of the claim.
For Declan Flight and Right Rudder, the immediate win is only a reset. The Eleventh Circuit’s ruling leaves the interference claim alive, but it says the district court reached the wrong answer on the threshold question that put the case where it is.