Commercial Disputes

• Served as an Arbitrator on a Large, Complex Aviation Dispute between a charter airline company and its broker over the broker’s fees for bringing professional sports teams and rock stars to the airline as customers.  The matter involved numerous multimillion dollar claims and counterclaims that were litigated over the course of a 7-business days-long arbitration, revolving around a lengthy commercial contract that called for the broker’s fees to be paid at rates that depended on numerous variables. Each side in the action was represented by a team of lawyers. The panel’s 70-page arbitration award was not appealed.
• Represented an international aviation company in a multimillion dollar breach of contract dispute in federal court. The case involved complex legal and factual issues concerning key commercial provisions in the parties’ agreement which called for the opposing party, another aviation company, to convert multiple aircraft per year for our client, for 10 years.

Employment (AIR21)

• Represented parties in an AIR21 matter, from the start of the case to a full blown trial and ultimately, in a confidential settlement. 

Product Liability

• Successfully defended an aerospace component part manufacturer from post-trial claims in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and an appeal to the Third Circuit against claims that its seal was defectively designed and caused flammable fluid to reach the engine manifold of a military helicopter, leading to the deaths of all Marines onboard. After the jury had found for the defense, Plaintiffs filed post-trial motions claiming many errors and that a new trial was required.  After multiple briefs before the district court and oral argument thereon, the court denied Plaintiffs post-trial motions.  Plaintiff appealed and after multiple briefs before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the Third Circuit affirmed.
• Represented an airline and wrote two briefs in federal court cases that were published in the Aviation Litigation Reporter, including a brief filed in the Supreme Court of the United States in an action brought under the Warsaw Convention, “Brief of Northwest Airlines, Inc. in Opposition to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari,” Grimes v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. Successfully defended the airline in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and in the Supreme Court of the United States, in litigation arising from a claim by a passenger aboard an international flight. The passenger alleged that his refusal to leave a seat to which he was not assigned, and his subsequent arrest and removal from the flight by airport police: (1) caused him to suffer an “accident which caused damage” within the meaning of Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention; and (2) was outside of the limitation of liability provision in Article 25 of the Warsaw Convention. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in favor of the airline on the passenger’s claims. After briefing, the Third Circuit affirmed. After the Opposition to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, the Supreme Court denied certiorari.
•  

• The Axelrod Firm’s attorneys defend and counsel companies in employment matters including in AIR-21 actions.  The Axelrod Firm’s President, Sheryl Axelrod, and former Partner, Lisa Savitt, published an article about this work in The American Bar Association, Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section, Aviation and Space Law, Winter 2020 (published in the Spring of 2020), “Mayday, Mayday! Minimizing air carriers’ exposure by protecting their whistleblowers – lessons gleaned from AIR 21.” | Spring 2020
• Brief Of Northwest Airlines, Inc. In Opposition To The Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Grimes v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., published, Aviation  Litigation Reporter.  In this action, the passenger onboard an international flight sued an airline company.  He alleged that his refusal to leave a seat to which he was not assigned, and his subsequent arrest and removal from the flight by airport police: (1) caused him to suffer an “accident which caused damage” within the meaning of Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention; and (2) was outside of the limitation of liability provision in Article 25 of the Warsaw Convention. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in favor of the airline on the passenger’s claims. After briefing, the Third Circuit affirmed. Plaintiff then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.  Ms. Axelrod wrote the Opposition to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, which the Aviation Litigation Reporter published.  After the opposition to a writ of certiorari was filed, the Supreme Court denied certiorari.

• Response Of Defendant Macrotech Fluid Sealing, Inc. To Plaintiffs’ Memorandum In Support Of Motion For New Trial, Stecyk v. Bell Helicopter, published, Aviation  Litigation Reporter.  This brief concerns litigation brought against an aerospace component part manufacturer by the estates of Marines who perished in the crash of a military helicopter.  The estates of the Marines claimed that the component part manufacturer’s seal was defectively designed, caused flammable fluid to reach the engine manifold, and caused the fire that led to the crash.  The case went to a trial which concluded with a defense verdict.  Plaintiffs filed post-trial motions claiming many reversible errors occurred and that a new trial was required.  Ms. Axelrod wrote the papers on behalf of the aerospace component part manufacturer opposing Plaintiffs’ post-trial motions before the district court.  The district court denied Plaintiffs’ post-trial motions, and Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  Ms. Axelrod wrote the brief on behalf of the manufacturer in the Third Circuit, and the Third Circuit affirmed the entry of judgment in the manufacturer’s favor.  The Aviation Litigation Reporter published the brief Ms. Axelrod wrote in the Third Circuit.