Airport, angry investor wrangle in ongoing lawsuit
Like people scuffling in a tiny cockpit over the controls of a Cessna, the Finleyville Airport board and one of its investors find themselves entangled in a months-long legal dispute over the running of the airport.
Attorney Gregg Zegarelli, who represents Tom Riemer – a former commercial pilot who spent $80,000 to buy 500 shares in the privately held company in 2008 – appeared in court on Tuesday opposite Chad Schneider, the lawyer representing the Union Township facility, which is privately held but available for public use and a recipient of some public funds.
He’s also suing its president, Bob Usnick, and six other board members.
Zegarelli asked Washington County Common Pleas Judge Michael Lucas to recuse himself and move the case to Allegheny County.
Lucas concluded the brief proceeding without ruling on those requests, but did say that he wouldn’t have the authority where to move the case even if he decided to do so, because the rules dictate that the new location would be up to the state Supreme Court.
Even if he were to recuse himself, he added, it would likely be up to President Judge Katherine B. Emery to decide whether to move the case.
Riemer, who reportedly spent about $50,000 on additional work in the hangar area following his purchase of the shares, initiated his lawsuit near the end of last year.
He claims the airport board members broke their own bylaws in breach of his contract with them.
Among other purported wrongdoing, Zegarelli says they held secret meetings, committed fraud, engaged in civil conspiracy, participated in self-dealing and retaliated against Riemer in violation of the state Whistleblower Law. Along with damages and other compensation, he seeks an injunction requiring the airport board to follow its bylaws.
The airport’s lawyer is seeking a dismissal, calling Riemer’s allegations vague and questioning the factual and legal basis for the various claims in the lawsuit.
During Tuesday’s proceeding, Zegarelli asserted that he planned eventually to call Judge John DiSalle – a member of the county bench as well as a private pilot and airport shareholder – as a “material witness” in the case, which could lead to a “confusion of roles” if he were to testify before jurors who are also his constituents.
Zegarelli claims that DiSalle, who is not a defendant, had been participating in the case by “advising” members of the airport board in secret meetings that were open to “certain other non-board members, particularly John DiSalle.”
In his petition, he also cited Lucas’ and Schneider’s respective former roles as senior county prosecutors, but stopped short of identifying any impropriety or specific conflicts their backgrounds posed.
“I’m just saying those are facts that happen to converge,” he said following the hearing.
Through a member of his staff, DiSalle declined comment on the pending case.
Lucas concluded this week’s proceeding by saying that he’d likely leave it up to the president judge to decide whether the case should be moved, even if he were to recuse himself.
Meanwhile, a hearing is set for Nov. 12 as part of a bid by Schneider and his clients in seeking a dismissal of the case.
In his filing seeking a dismissal, Schneider called the references in the case to DiSalle “scandalous and impertinent,” adding that it was “interesting” that only DiSalle was named when other non-members were supposedly allowed into the board’s closed-door meetings.
Schneider also addressed each of Riemer’s claims to assert they should be dismissed. For example, he wrote in response to the breach of contract claim that Reimer’s lawsuit cited “no terms or provisions … that form the basis of any duty owed or specific averments of actions taken by board members in contradiction to the unpled terms.”
In response to a claim Riemer made under the state Whistleblower Law, Schneider wrote that the “retaliatory fees” and other supposed retribution Riemer alleges he faced “wouldn’t fall under the confines of the Whistleblower statute.”
“Even assuming the retaliation alleged is due to Whistleblower-like activity, the activity alleged in no way relates to any alleged employment plaintiff enjoyed,” the filing continued. “As such, the activity alleged does not fall under the provisions of this Act.”