Saipan Air, Inc. v. Stukes, 505 B.R. 305

Defendants Stakes, Corny, and Van Lier were Swift Air officers/advisers; Corny was CEO, Van Lier Director of Operations, Stakes CRO.
Saipan Air and Swift Air entered a 2012 aircraft/maintenance/insurance agreement; Saipan Air wired $1.267 million and provided a $524,000 letter of credit.
Swift Air terminated the agreement on June 21, 2012; Swift Air filed for Chapter 11 on June 27, 2012.
Saipan Air participated in the bankruptcy proceeding as a major unsecured creditor and relied on Ferguson Declaration alleging fraud and misrepresentations by Swift Air personnel.
Swift Air’s Third Amended Plan (August 21, 2013) included a broad supplemental injunction in § 9.7 against claims against released parties; plan was confirmed October 1, 2013.
Saipan Air sued the individual Defendants in this district for fraud, unjust enrichment, and RICO, arguing the plan’s release did not bar the action; the court denies the motion for summary judgment denying injunction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 9.7 clearly enjoins the claims against the individuals	Saipan Air argues released parties include those releasing liability.	Defendants contend released parties are those released from liability, including officers and agents.	§ 9.7 ambiguous; not clearly identifiable released parties.
Whether res judicata bars Saipan Air’s claims	Plan confirms final judgment; claims released.	Plan releases broad category; precludes collateral attack.	Res judicata does not bar; plan language insufficiently clear.
Whether Arizona law governs contract interpretation of the Plan	Arizona law applies per plan confirmation.	Arizona law governs; interpretation should be driven by contract principles.	Arizona law controls interpretation of the Plan.
Whether the court has authority to enforce the injunction against the defendants	Enforcement lies where injunction issued; Bankruptcy Court retained jurisdiction.	Enforcement could be by appellate or district court; not necessarily in this case.	Bankruptcy court retained jurisdiction; the court may still assess the claim-preclusion effect.

Trulis v. Barton, 107 F.3d 685 (9th Cir. 1997) (clear identifiability of released parties controls res judicata)
In re Robert L. Helms Construction & Dev. Co., 139 F.3d 702 (9th Cir. 1998) (plan confirms final judgment with res judicata effect)
Miller v. United States, 363 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2004) (ambiguous plan releases require clear terms)
Circle K Corp. v. Collins (In re Circle K Corp.), 98 F.3d 484 (9th Cir. 1996) (contract-like interpretation of a reorganization plan)
Sirek v. Fairfield Snowbowl, 166 Ariz. 183 (Ariz. 1990) (Arizona law requires clear language for liability release)
Bothell v. Two Point Acres, 192 Ariz. 313 (App. 1998) (strict construction against release of liability)
Rein v. Providian Financial Corp., 270 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2001) (preclusion principles in bankruptcy contexts)
Unsecured Creditors’ Comm. v. Southmark Corp. (In re Robert L. Helms Constr. & Dev. Co.), 139 F.3d 702 (9th Cir. 1998) (plan as final judgment with res judicata effect)
Baker v. CMC, 522 U.S. 222 (U.S. 1998) (sanctions for injunction violations generally by issuing court)
Ramirez-Juarez v. INS, 633 F.2d 174 (9th Cir. 1980) (discusses enforcement of foreign or external injunctions)