Case 1:22-cv-00548 Document 1 Filed 12/09/22 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
`
`
`
`PRIVATE JET SERVICES GROUP, LLC
`plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`TWITTER, INC.,
`defendant
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.: _______________
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`(Jury Trial Demanded)
`
`Private Jet Services Group, LLC (“PJS”) complains against Twitter, Inc.
`
`1.
`
`(“Twitter”) for breach of contract and, in the alternative, for breach of quasi-contract because
`
`Twitter refuses to pay $197,725 for private air charter passenger transportation services that
`
`Twitter requested for, and that PJS provided to, its executive on October 26 and 27, 2022.
`
`Parties
`
`2.
`
`PJS is Florida limited liability company with a principal place of business located
`
`at 1111 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 500, Miami Beach, Florida and with a recently former principal
`
`place of business located at 5 Batcheler Road, Seabrook, New Hampshire.
`
`3.
`
`Twitter is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business located at
`
`1355 Market Street, San Francisco, California.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`4.
`
`The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because
`
`the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
`
`5.
`
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over Twitter pursuant to NH RSA 510:4
`
`because Twitter has transacted business within New Hampshire and because the parties agreed
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
`
`
`
`PRIVATE JET SERVICES GROUP, LLC
`plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`TWITTER, INC.,
`defendant
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.: _______________
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`(Jury Trial Demanded)
`
`Private Jet Services Group, LLC (“PJS”) complains against Twitter, Inc.
`
`1.
`
`(“Twitter”) for breach of contract and, in the alternative, for breach of quasi-contract because
`
`Twitter refuses to pay $197,725 for private air charter passenger transportation services that
`
`Twitter requested for, and that PJS provided to, its executive on October 26 and 27, 2022.
`
`Parties
`
`2.
`
`PJS is Florida limited liability company with a principal place of business located
`
`at 1111 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 500, Miami Beach, Florida and with a recently former principal
`
`place of business located at 5 Batcheler Road, Seabrook, New Hampshire.
`
`3.
`
`Twitter is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business located at
`
`1355 Market Street, San Francisco, California.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`4.
`
`The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because
`
`the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
`
`5.
`
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over Twitter pursuant to NH RSA 510:4
`
`because Twitter has transacted business within New Hampshire and because the parties agreed
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00548 Document 1 Filed 12/09/22 Page 2 of 6
`
`
`
`that “[a]ny action relating to [the Agreement that forms the basis for this action] in part or its
`
`entirety must be brought in the Federal or State Courts located in New Hampshire and each party
`
`irrevocably consents to the jurisdiction of such courts.”
`
`6.
`
`Venue is proper in the District Court for the District of New Hampshire pursuant
`
`to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
`
`Allegations
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`PJS is an air charter passenger transportation services broker.
`
`On June 24, 2020, PJS and Twitter agreed to and signed Air Charter Services
`
`Blanket Purchase Agreement # 2020-4151 (“BPA”).
`
`9.
`
`Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the BPA, Twitter is able to book air
`
`charter passenger transportation services through PJS. Although the BPA required Twitter’s
`
`“Designated Representatives” to book its air charter passenger transportation services and then
`
`acknowledge the terms of the air charter passenger transportation services in a Statement of
`
`Work, in practice, Twitter’s process of booking and acknowledging air charter passenger
`
`transportation services did not always follow the process set forth in the BPA. For instance, on
`
`numerous occasions, Twitter employees other than its Designated Representatives booked and
`
`acknowledged its requested air charter passenger transportation services including via emails and
`
`text messages and not Statements of Work.
`
`10.
`
`During the evening October 25, 2022, via email and text, Twitter employee
`
`Taylor DeLorenzo booked air charter passenger transportation services for Twitter executive
`
`Leslie Berland from Teterboro to San Francisco for the morning of October 26, 2022.
`
`11.
`
`PJS arranged, confirmed and provided to Twitter’s executive the air charter
`
`passenger transportation services that Twitter requested from Teterboro to San Francisco.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00548 Document 1 Filed 12/09/22 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`12.
`
`On October 26, 2022, PJS invoiced Twitter $103,850 for its executive’s air
`
`charter passenger transportation services from Teterboro to San Francisco, with payment due by
`
`November 2, 2022.
`
`13.
`
`During the afternoon of October 27, 2022, via email, Twitter employee Cynthia
`
`Ancheta booked air charter passenger transportation services for Twitter executive Leslie
`
`Berland from San Francisco to Teterboro for the evening of October 27, 2022.
`
`14.
`
`PJS arranged, confirmed and provided to Twitter’s executive the air charter
`
`passenger transportation services that Twitter requested from San Francisco to Teterboro.
`
`15.
`
`On October 27, 2022, PJS invoiced Twitter $93,875 for its executive’s air charter
`
`passenger transportation services from San Francisco to Teterboro, with payment due by
`
`November 3, 2022.
`
`16.
`
`Twitter did not timely pay either of PJS’s invoices for the air charter passenger
`
`transportation services that it provided.
`
`17.
`
`On November 16, 2022, Twitter employee Marty O’Neill, “Head of Global
`
`Strategic Sourcing at Twitter” emailed PJS “informing you that Twitter is not liable for these
`
`expenses [i.e., the invoices for the air charter passenger transportation services that Twitter
`
`requested and that PJS provided] and therefore will not be paying these invoices.” Mr. O’Neill
`
`explained Twitter’s decision not to pay for the services that it requested and that PJS provided by
`
`writing that “[a]s you know only Designated Representatives listed in Exhibit A of the [BPA] are
`
`allowed to order services on behalf of Twitter.”
`
`18.
`
`On November 16, 2022, Twitter employee Taylor DeLorenzo replied to Twitter
`
`employee O’Neill’s email: “Just wanted to send a quick note with regards to the outstanding
`
`invoice for PJS: Parag [Agrawal] did sign off on this expense (he was still CEO at the time of
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00548 Document 1 Filed 12/09/22 Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`both flight purchases) for Leslie. It was an urgent need the week the deal closed, and Leslie was
`
`the main person from Twitter liaising directly with Elon. Additionally, I had been approving all
`
`of the PJS transactions prior to this one - all of which Twitter paid with no issue or mention of
`
`the below requirements. Just wanted to share additional context here.”
`
`19.
`
`On November 16, 2022, Twitter employee O’Neill replied to Twitter employee
`
`DeLorenzo’s email: “Thanks Taylor, appreciate the added context. However, new management
`
`is not going to budge and while yes you had been requesting, it doesn't change the terms agreed
`
`to in the agreement. If anything, legally we shouldn't have paid for when you made those
`
`requests or alternatively Private Jet Services could have cited breach of contract. I know you're
`
`looking for a resolution but can't emphasize enough that new management wants to hold firm on
`
`this.”
`
`20.
`
`According to Twitter employee DeLorenzo’s internal Twitter emails, the former
`
`CEO of Twitter, Parag Agrawal, approved the air charter passenger transportation services for
`
`Twitter’s executive that Twitter requested and that PJS provided on October 26, 2022 and
`
`October 27, 2022.
`
`21.
`
`According to Twitter employee O’Neill’s internal Twitter emails, the reason that
`
`Twitter refuses to pay PJS’s invoices for the services PJS provided to Twitter is because “new
`
`management” has made a decision not to pay those invoices and “new management wants to
`
`hold firm on this.”
`
`Count I
`Breach of Contract
`
`PJS incorporates all allegations in this Complaint as if restated in full herein.
`
`22.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00548 Document 1 Filed 12/09/22 Page 5 of 6
`
`
`
`23.
`
`Twitter has breached the parties’ contract by refusing to pay for the air charter
`
`passenger transportation services that Twitter requested for its executive and that PJS provided
`
`on October 26, 2022 and October 27, 2022.
`
`24.
`
`PJS has been damaged by Twitter’s breach of the parties’ contract by refusing to
`
`pay for the air charter passenger transportation services that Twitter requested for its executive
`
`and that PJS provided on October 26, 2022 and October 27, 2022.
`
`Count II
`Breach of Quasi-Contract
`
`
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`PJS incorporates all allegations in this Complaint as if restated in full herein.
`
`In New Hampshire, a valid claim in quantum meruit requires that: (1) services
`
`were rendered to the defendant by the plaintiff; (2) with the knowledge and consent of the
`
`defendant; and (3) under circumstances that make it reasonable for the plaintiff to expect
`
`payment. Gen. Insulation Co. v. Eckman Const., 159 N.H. 601, 612 (2010).
`
`27.
`
`Air charter passenger transportation services were provided to Twitter by PJS on
`
`October 26, 2022 and October 27, 2022 with the knowledge and consent of Twitter and under
`
`circumstances that make it reasonable for PJS to expect payment.
`
`28.
`
`PJS has been damaged by Twitter’s breach of the parties’ quasi-contract by
`
`refusing to pay for the air charter passenger transportation services that Twitter requested for its
`
`executive and that PJS provided on October 26, 2022 and October 27, 2022.
`
`PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
`
`29. WHEREFORE, PJS respectfully requests that the Court:
`
`A. Enter judgment on all Counts;
`
`B. Award PJS all damages to which it is entitled;
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00548 Document 1 Filed 12/09/22 Page 6 of 6
`
`
`
`C. Award PJS its reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs including as
`
`allowed by contract, statute and/or decisional law; and
`
`D. Grant such further relief as is necessary and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`December 9, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`PRIVATE JET SERVICES GROUP, LLC,
`
`By its attorneys,
`
`SHAHEEN & GORDON, P.A.,
`
`/s/ Timothy J. McLaughlin
`Timothy J. McLaughlin (NH bar # 19570)
`107 Storrs Street
`P.O. Box 2703
`Concord, NH 03302
`(603) 617-3035
`tjmclaughlin@shaheengordon.com
`
`
`
`6
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
