Court Reverses Dismissal in Declan Flight v. Textron Case

In a significant ruling for aviation businesses, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's dismissal of Declan Flight, Inc. and Right Rudder Aviation, LLC's lawsuit against Textron eAviation, Inc. The court's decision allows the plaintiffs to pursue their claims for tortious interference with contracts, which could have wide-ranging implications for contract enforcement in the aviation industry.

The case, Declan Flight, Inc. v. Textron eAviation, Inc., was filed on May 26, 2026, under docket number 24-10913. It centers on allegations that Textron, after acquiring Pipistrel d.o.o., cut off existing contracts with Declan and RRA, which had previously served as key sales representatives and distributors for Pipistrel in the United States. The ruling is crucial as it addresses the enforceability of forum-selection clauses and the scope of tortious interference claims in business contracts.

Background

Declan Flight, Inc. and Right Rudder Aviation, LLC are two aviation firms that entered into contracts with Pipistrel, a Slovenian aircraft manufacturer. Declan Flight was appointed as the chief sales representative for Pipistrel's special products in the U.S. in 2020, while RRA became the exclusive distributor of Pipistrel aircraft in 2021. Both companies played a vital role in generating sales for Pipistrel, accounting for up to 90% of its total sales in the U.S.

In April 2022, Textron acquired Pipistrel and integrated its operations under Textron eAviation. Initially, Textron promised to continue working with Declan and RRA, but soon after the acquisition, it terminated their contracts. This led to the plaintiffs suing Textron for tortious interference, claiming that Textron's actions directly harmed their business relationships with Pipistrel and Mesa Airlines, which had a sales agreement with RRA.

The case was brought to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, where the district court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The court ruled that the forum-selection clauses within the contracts, which directed disputes to Slovenia, could be enforced against Textron, even though it was not a party to those contracts. The plaintiffs appealed this decision, arguing that the district court misapplied the law.

The Ruling

Upon reviewing the case, the Eleventh Circuit Court determined that the district court had erred in its application of the forum non conveniens doctrine. The court reversed the dismissal of Counts I and II, which pertained to Declan's and RRA's contracts with Pipistrel. The judges noted that the forum-selection clauses could not be enforced against the plaintiffs by Textron, as they were governed by Slovenian law, which does not allow non-signatories to invoke such clauses.

The court stated, "the non-signatory Defendants cannot invoke those clauses, meaning there is no 'valid forum-selection clause' applicable to the Plaintiffs' claims," highlighting the importance of adhering to the substantive law governing contracts.

This ruling emphasized the distinction between the applicability and enforceability of forum-selection clauses, clarifying that the interpretation of these clauses should follow the law governing the contract rather than federal common law. The court also found that the district court had incorrectly applied the modified forum non conveniens test established in the Supreme Court case Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Impact

The Eleventh Circuit's decision has significant implications for businesses operating in the aviation sector and beyond. By allowing the plaintiffs to pursue their claims, the ruling reinforces the notion that companies cannot easily circumvent contractual obligations by acquiring other businesses. It also sets a precedent that forum-selection clauses must be interpreted according to the governing law of the contract, which could affect how businesses draft and enforce contracts in the future.

This ruling may also encourage other businesses facing similar issues of tortious interference to seek legal recourse when their contracts are undermined by larger corporations. The decision contributes to the ongoing legal discourse regarding the balance of power between large corporations and smaller businesses, particularly in the context of contract law and tortious interference.

What's Next

Following this ruling, the case will return to the lower court for further proceedings. The plaintiffs will have the opportunity to present their claims against Textron and eAviation. There is potential for further appeals, depending on the outcomes in the lower court, especially regarding the remaining counts related to personal jurisdiction and tortious interference claims.