F.H. Bertling PTE Ltd v. Qatar Airways Q.C.S.C. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
P.H. BERTLING PTE LTD.,
Plaintiff,
VS.
QATAR AIRWAYS Q.C.S.C.,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-03488
§
§
§
§
ORDER
Pending before this Court is Plaintiff F .H. Bertling PTE Ltd. ' s ("Bertling") Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 50). Defendant Qatar Airways Q.C.S.C. ("Qatar Airways")
filed a response, (Doc. No. 59-1), and Bertling replied. (Doc. No. 67). After a close review of the
filings , admissible summary judgment evidence, and the relevant legal standards, this Court hereby
GRANTS-IN-PART 	AND 	DENIES-IN-PART 	Bertling' s 	Motion 	for 	Partial 	Summary
Judgment (Doc. No. 50).
I. 	Factual Background
As this Court has previously set out, see (Doc. No. 76), this case arises from an attempted
intercontinental freight shipment from Houston, Texas to Changi, Singapore. (Doc. No. 11) (First
Amended Complaint). Bertling is a freight forwarding company organized under the laws of
Singapore and with its principal place of business there. (Id.). Bertling contracted with Air Charter
Service (HK) Ltd. ("ACS") to arrange an aircraft to transport about 100 ,000 kilograms of cargo
from Houston to Singapore. S ee (Doc. No. 50-2). That written contract (the "Bertling- ACS
Contract") laid out several terms and conditions that are relevant to this dispute. First, the Bertling-
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 30, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:22-cv-03488 Document 101 Filed 07/30/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 14

ACS Contract required that the cargo had to be "customs cleared and ready for carriage 24 hours
prior to the scheduled departure," which was set for May 4, 2022, at 9:40 AM Central Standard
Time. (Id. at 4). Second, the Bertling- ACS Contract required Bertling to "deliver the Cargo to the
departure airport [IAH] ... properly packaged to the satisfaction of the Carrier [Qatar Airways]
within the time frame specified in the Schedule," which was 24 hours before scheduled departure.
(Id. at 5) (§ 4.1); see also (id. at 7) (§ 6 .3 ) ("[Bertling] shall ensure that any Cargo is available and
ready for loading onto the Aircraft at the place and time and date specified in the Schedule . . . .").
Third, the Bertling- ACS Contract stated that Bertling " is responsible for the Cargo [on] either side
of the Flight, [and] for the avoidance of doubt, this means that the Cargo is customs cleared and
security screened (if necessary) ... ." (Id.)(§ 6.3).
After executing the Bertling- ACS Contract, ACS then contracted with Qatar to charter its
aircraft to transport Bertling 's cargo to satisfy its obligations under the Bertling- ACS Contract.
(Id. at 13). Under the agreement with Qatar (the "ACS- Qatar Contract"), ACS agreed that "it
enter[ ed] into the Contract both as principal on its own behalf and as agent for all persons and
owners of the goods and cargo carried under the Charter, each of whom shall be bound by these
Conditions." (Id. 	at 20) (§ 17 .3 ). Like the Bertling- ACS Contract, the ACS- Qatar Contract
required the "Cargo [to] be ready loading twenty-four (24) hours before scheduled time of
departure." (Id. 	at 13) ("Reporting Time" ). The ACS- Qatar Contract also put the burden of
clearing customs on Bertling and ACS, stating that the Charterer "undertakes, represents, and
warrants that" " [a]ll subcontractors, agents, Passengers and other parties having or claiming any
interest in the carriage under the Charter .. . shall comply with all customs and all other formalities,
applicable laws, and regulations in relation thereto ... " (Id. at 18) (§ 13.1). The ACS- Qatar
Contract also states:
2
Case 4:22-cv-03488 Document 101 Filed 07/30/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 14

If due to refusal, cancellation, or late granting of any authorisation, clearance, or
permit required for the performance of the Programme, or for unforeseen Aircraft
failures, crew limitations, safety or security concerns, or if due to any other cause
beyond the control of Qatar Airways, Qatar Airways is unable within a reasonable
time to pe,form the Programme, 	then 	Qatar Airways may, 	at its absolute
discretion, but without obligation, immediately suspend or terminate the Contract
upon notice to the Charterer. In the event of termination or suspension of the
Contract in accordance with the foregoing , no penalty shall be due or payable by
either Party and both Parties will be absolved of all liabilities for any and all losses
suffered therefrom and any payments of deposits or Charter Price made by or on
behalf of the Charterer to Qatar Airways will be refunded to the Charterer within
a reasonable period of time ....
(Id. at 17) (§ 7.1) (emphasis added).
Despite the fact that both the Bertling- ACS and ACS- Qatar Contracts contain explicit
provisions that require the cargo to be delivered at least 24 hours before the scheduled departure
date, it is undisputed that "the first truck transporting the Subject Cargo arrived at IAH at or around
9:32 [AM] on May 3, 2022" and "[t]he remaining four trucks arrived in the course of the following
hour." (Id. at 32). Accordingly, while the first truck was timely, it is undisputed that the entirety
of the shipment was not delivered until after the 24-hour deadline. See (id. at 4) (noting that the
scheduled departure time was 9:40 AM on May 4, 2022). After the delivery of the cargo,
Worldwide Flight Services, Inc. ("WFS"), 1 a ground handling contractor for Qatar, began the
security screening process. It is undisputed that the cargo failed to pass the screening process
"when one part of it failed the Explosives Trace Detection (ETD) screening." (Id. at 24). Qatar
contends that because the cargo was not cleared by TSA, Qatar "was prohibited by law from
loading the Subject Cargo onto the aircraft." (Id.).
1 Bertling also brought several claims against WFS in this lawsuit. After reviewing WFS ' s Motion
for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 53), this Court dismissed all claims against WFS on April 8th,
2025. (Doc. No. 76).
3
Case 4:22-cv-03488 Document 101 Filed 07/30/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 14

Bertling contends that after it "was informed that the cargo had failed security screening,"
a Project Manager at Bertling, Jon Mezo ("Mezo"), "spoke with a representative of Qatar who
purported to speak on behalf of both Qatar and WFS." (Id. at 1) (Deel. of Jon Mezo). Bertling
contends that this representative "stated that it would permit the cargo to be divided up , split onto
new airway bills, and re -delivered to IAH airport by 7:00 pm on May 3, 2022." (Id.). After
receiving these instructions, "Bertling arranged for the cargo to be retrieved from IAH airport for
re-packaging" and then " re -delivered the cargo to IAH." (Id. at 2). Qatar, on the other hand,
contends that while there was a call to discuss the screening results, Qatar and WFS employees
specifically advised ACS "NOT to re-tender the cargo, as [they] were well past cut off and did not
have the manpower to accept it." (Doc. No. 58-2 at 24) (internal email from Martha Arcizo of
Qatar to several other Qatar employees on November 17 , 2022). 2
Regardless of which (if either) rendition is accurate, it is undisputed that when the second
delivery arrived at IAH approximately at 7:00 PM, Qatar "did not at any time have staff present to
perform the necessary screening of the cargo." (Doc. No. 50-2 at 45). Qatar contends that while
"WPS was contracted to provide two screening staff . .. for cargo being carried by Qatar [] between
the hours of 08:00 and 17:00 on Tuesdays," the staff had left the airport by the time of the second
delivery. (Id.). Qatar maintains that it "made reasonable efforts to ask WFS to keep its screening
staff at the facility, but Qatar [] does not have the authority to order or direct the assignment or
work hours of WPS screening personnel." (Id.). Accordingly, there were no staff to complete the
required security screening.
2 The Court notes that this email was in response to several emailed questions about this dispute
sent from another employee at Qatar. (Id.) ( describing Bertling' s allegations and asking Martha
Arcizo if those allegations are correct). The email was sent on November 17 , 2022, over six months
after the series of event leading up to this lawsuit. (Id.)
4
Case 4:22-cv-03488 Document 101 Filed 07/30/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 14

Ultimately, it is also undisputed that the cargo did not make it on the scheduled flight and
that Qatar did not refund ACS and/or Bertling for the charter price at $850,000.00. (Id. at 41).
Based on this series of events, Bertling filed this lawsuit against Qatar for (1) breach of contract,
(2) breach of oral contract, (3) negligent misrepresentation, and (4) negligence. (Doc. No. 11). 3
Bertling filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, requesting this Court to find that Qatar
breached the Qatar- ACS Contract, as a matter of law, when it failed to ship out the cargo and/or
failed to issue a refund for the charter. (Doc. No. 50). The Court considers the Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment below.
II. 	Legal Standard
Summary judgment is warranted " if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. Clv. P.
56(a). "The movant bears the burden of identifying those portions of the record it believes
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Triple Tee Golf, Inc. v. Nike, Inc.,
485 F.3d 253 , 261 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322- 25 (1986)).
Once a movant submits a properly supported motion, the burden shifts to the non-movant to show
that the court should not grant the motion. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 321 - 25. The non-movant then must
provide specific facts showing that there is a genuine dispute. Id. at 324; Matsushita Elec. Indus.
Co . v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). It is the responsibility of the parties to
specifically point the Court to the pertinent evidence, and its location, in the record that the party
thinks are relevant. Malacara v. Garber, 353 F.3d 393, 405 (5th Cir. 2003). It is not the duty of
the Court to search the record for evidence that might establish an issue of material fact. Id.
3 After this Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was filed, Qatar filed a Third-Party Complaint
against ACS. (Doc. No. 79).
5
Case 4:22-cv-03488 Document 101 Filed 07/30/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 14

A dispute about a material fact is genuine if " th e evidence is such that a reasonable jury
could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anders on v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
248 (1986). The court must draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party in deciding a summary judgment motion. Id. at 255. The key question on
summary judgment is whether there is evidence raising an issue of material fact upon which a
hypothetical, reasonable factfinder could find in favor of the nonmoving party. Id. at 248.
III. 	Analysis
Bertling requests this Court to find, as a matter of law, that Qatar breached the ACS- Qatar
Contract when it failed to ship out the cargo and/or failed to issue a refund for the charter. (Doc.
No. 50). In response, Qatar argues that because "Bertling [n]ever executed a contract with Qatar
Airways," " no contract, written or otherwise, between Bertling and Qatar Airways exists." (Doc.
No. 59-1 at 5). Qatar contends that even assuming, arguendo, that Bertling is able to assert rights
under the ACS- Qatar Contract, "genuine issues of material fact [] exist as to whether Bertling
fully performed its obligations under any contract at issue here, whether Qatar Airways breached
its obligations under such a contract, and whether Bertling suffered any damages from Qatar
Airways' alleged breach." (Id. at 6) . It is well-established Texas law that "[t]he elements of a
breach-of-contract action are (1) the existence of a valid contract, (2) performance or tendered
performance by the plaintiff, (3) breach of contract by the defendant, and (4) damages sustained
by the plaintiff as a result of the breach." Tamasy v. Lone Star College Sys., 635 S.W.3d 702, 708
(Tex. App.- 	Houston [14th] 2021 , no pet.). The Court addresses these elements, in tum, below.
A. There is a valid contract between Qatar and Bertling.
The Court first considers whether a valid contract exists between Qatar and Bertling, or
more specifically, whether Bertling has a right to enforce the ACS- Qatar Contract. Qatar contends
6
Case 4:22-cv-03488 Document 101 Filed 07/30/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 14

that because Bertling was not a signatory on the ACS- Qatar Contract, there is no valid contract
between Bertling and Qatar, and thus, no possible breach of contract claim. Bertling, on the other
hand, maintains that because ACS entered into the ACS- Qatar Contact as an agent of Bertling,
under Texas law,4 Bertling can enforce the contract as the principal. The Court finds that there is
no genuine dispute of material fact that there was a principal-agent relationship between Bertling
and ACS, and that accordingly, Bertling can enforce the ACS- Qatar Contract as the principal.
As a preliminary matter, "[t]he question of whether a principal-agent relationship exists
under established facts is a question of law for the court." First Nat. Acceptance Co. v. Bishop,
187 S.W.3d 710, 714 (Tex. App.- 	Corpus Christi 2006, no pet.). "An agent is one who consents
to the control of another, the principal, where the principal manifests consent that the agent shall
act for the principal." Id. "A principal-agent relationship is not presumed, and the party asserting
the relationship has the burden of proving it. " Id. "The party claiming agency must prove the
principal has both the right to assign the agent's task and the right to control the means and details
by which the agent will accomplish the task." Id.
The Court finds that there is no genuine dispute of material fact that Bertling and ACS had
a principal-agent relationship for this transaction. On April 26, 2022, Bertling entered into a written
contract with ACS to ship the subject cargo. (Doc. No. 50-2 at 3). The Bertling-ACS Contract
provided that "ACS shall make available to [Bertling] the Aircraft as specified in the Schedule
below and [Bertling shall take the Aircraft on charter from ACS .... " (Id.). The Bertling- ACS
Contract set out the following proposed schedule:
4 The Parties agree that Texas law applies to this dispute. See (Doc. Nos. 50 , 59-1).
7
Case 4:22-cv-03488 Document 101 Filed 07/30/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 14

THE SCHEDULE :
Aircraft type: Boe i ng BTT7 -200F
Gr oss payload: 100,000 Kilos or vo lumetric eq uivalenl
De part ure date/ ti me l utd 	From 	To
4t h M ay 2022 / 14:40 	Ho usto n (IAH), USA 	lie ge (L GG), Belg i um
5t h M av 20 22 / 02:10 	Liel!e ( LGG ), Be hi ium 	Do ha (D OH). Qatar
5th May 20 22 / 22 :00 	Doh a ( DOH }. Qatar 	Changi (SIN }, Singapore
With tec hn ica l (refueling) stop (s) al DOH and/or other alrport(s). Full schedule to be confi rm ed .
SUB JECT TO SLOTS, TRAFFI C RI GHTS AND AIRCRAFT PAR KING
Arr iva l date/t ime f utd
4th May 20 22 / 23:50
5th M av 2022 / 08 :1S
5th May 2022 / 05:40 +1
(Id.). Bertling agreed to pay ACS the "Charter Price" in exchange for ACS to agree to act as "an
intermediary between [Bertling] and [Qatar] in connection with the provision of the Aircraft for
any flight." (Id. at 5)(§ 3.1).
On the same day that the Bertling- ACS Contract was executed, ACS entered into a written
contract with Qatar. (Id. at 13) (listing the Effective Date as April 26 , 2022). The ACS- Qatar
Contract provided the exact same flight schedule as the Bertling- ACS Contract:
i 	Alr1m1Jt
4 ProQlrflm m•
8oell)9 777 Frolghter , Reg!slrallooMaa.s : A7• BFO
The Flights in acc«danco ~lh Ille 61che~ of l if#:l ts spoclied below (all lfmas II\ UTC►:
N' 	- 	FLIGHT N' ' 	- 	P.
(Id.). The ACS- Qatar Contract specifically provided that "[ ACS] agrees that it enters into the
Contract both as principal on its own behalf and as agent/or all persons and owners of the goods
and cargo carried under the Charter, each of whom shall be bound by these conditions." (Id. at
20) (§ 17.3) (emphasis added). It is undisputed that Bertling owned the subject cargo. See (Doc.
Nos. 50, 59-1).
While Qatar argues that "[n]othing in the ACS- Qatar Contract identifies Bertling, or
[identified] that ACS was operating as the agent for any principal, including Bertling," (Doc. No.
59-1 at 5) , the summary judgment evidence establishes otherwise. The Bertling- ACS Contract
shows that Bertling hired ACS to act as the "intermediary," or as an agent, to book the necessary
8
Case 4:22-cv-03488 Document 101 Filed 07/30/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 14

transportation services to ship the cargo. On the same day that Bertling hired ACS for this project,
ACS entered into an agreement with Qatar " as agent for all persons and owners of the goods and
cargo" for the transportation of the cargo. The Court finds that Bertling established that there is no
genuine dispute of material fact that ACS entered the ACS- Qatar Contract in its capacity as an
agent.
Having established that a principal-agent relationship existed between Bertling and ACS
for the purposes of this transaction, the Court next addresses whether Bertling has the right to
enforce the ACS- Qatar Contract as the principal. Under Texas law, "[a]n agent need not disclose
his or her principal ' s identity in order to act on behalf of that principal." Latch v. Gr atty, Inc. , 107
S.W.3d 543 , 546 (Tex. 2003). "An agent may make a contract for an undisclosed principal in his
own name, and the latter may sue or be sued on the contract." Bishop, 187 S.W.3d at 714- 715. In
other words, " [a] principal- 	whether disclosed or not- 	may sue on a contract made by its agent."
CH U de Quebe c- Universite Laval v. Dreamscape Dev. Grp. Holdings, Inc., No. 4:21-CV-18 2,
2026 WL 1091594, at *9 - 10 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2026) (relying on Latch, 107 S.W.3d at 546).
Here, Bertling, as the principal, "is a party to, and may sue on," the ACS- Qatar Contract
because ACS entered into that contract as Bertling' s agent. See CHU de Quebec-Universite Laval,
2026 WL 1091594, at *9 - 10 . Though Qatar contends that Bertling cannot enforce the ACS- Qatar
Contract because it "is not a signatory" and "has put forth no evidence establishing that it has a
right to enforce ... as the principal of ACS," the Court disagrees. As described above, the summary
judgment evidence establishes that Bertling contracted with ACS to act as its agent to book the
necessary transportation to transport the cargo, and ACS contracted with Qatar " as agent" for
Bertling to transport that cargo. (Doc. No. 50-2 at 3- 20). Accordingly, the Court finds that there
is no genuine dispute of material fact that Bertling can enforce the ACS- Qatar Contract. The Court
9
Case 4:22-cv-03488 Document 101 Filed 07/30/26 in TXSD Page 9 of 14

GRANTS Bertling's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 50) as to the first element
of the breach of contract claim.
B. 	There is a genuine dispute of material fact as to the remaining elements.
Bertling requests this Court to find that there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to
the remaining elements of the breach of contract claim: "(2) performance or tendered performance
by the plaintiff, (3) breach of contract by the defendant, and (4) damages sustained by the plaintiff
as a result of the breach." Tamasy, 635 S.W.3d at 708 . The Court finds that wh il e the summary
judgment evidence establishes that there is no genuine dispute of material fact that Bertling can
enforce the ACS- Qatar Contract against Qatar, there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to
breach and performance. The Court addresses these issues below.
1. 	Performance
First, the Court finds that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Bertling
performed under the ACS- Qatar Contract as to (1) the timeliness of the delivery and (2) the quality
of the packaging. The ACS- Qatar Contract clearly required the "Cargo [to] be ready loading
twenty-four (24) hours before scheduled time of departure" and that the cargo "shall comply with
all customs and a ll other formalities, applicable laws, and regulations." (Doc. No. 50-2 at 13, 18).
While Bertling argues that it performed under the Contract because "the first truck transporting
the Cargo to IAH arrived" before the 24-hour deadline, (Doc. No. 50 at 15), Qatar provided
summary judgment evidence that demonstrates that the last four of the five total trucks with the
cargo arrived after the 24-hour deadline. (Doc. No. 50-2 at 32). The Court finds that there is a
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Bertling performed its obligation to deliver the cargo
by the required deadline.
Case 4:22-cv-03488 Document 101 Filed 07/30/26 in TXSD Page 10 of 14

The Court also finds that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the cargo
arrived in compliance with the ACS- Qatar Contract. Qatar provided summary judgment evidence
that when the first shipment arrived, Bertling was missing necessary documents for the security
screening, and that on top of the delayed arrival of the cargo, the missing documents delayed the
process even further. See (Doc. No. 59-2 at 51). Nevertheless, Qatar accepted the cargo and began
the screening process, but part of the shipment "failed the Explosives Trace Detection (ETD)
screening." (Doc. No. 50-2 at 24). At that point, Qatar contends that Bertling failed to perform
under the terms of the ACS- Qatar Contract because the shipment was late and failed the screening.
Bertling provided summary judgment evidence, on the other hand, that demonstrates that Qatar
"stated that it would permit the cargo to be divided up, split onto new airway bill s, and re-delivered
to IAH airport by 7:00 pm on May 3, 2022" and still make it on the flight the following morning.
(Id. at 1). Bertling argues that the re-delivery was full performance under the Contract. 5
The Court finds that while this analysis is not exhaustive of the various fact issues that
pervade this case and this specific element, a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether
Bertling performed its obligations under the ACS- Qatar Contract.
2. 	Breach
The Court also finds that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Qatar
breached the ACS- Qatar Contract when it failed to deliver the cargo and/or failed to refund
ACS/Bertling for the Charter Price.
5 The Court notes, however, that the ACS- Qatar Contract explicitly states that "No addition to , or
variation of, these Conditions shall bind Qatar Airways unless contained in the Contract or
otherwise agreed in writing between the Parties after the execution of the Contract." (Doc. No. 50-
2 at 15) (§ 1.2). While Bertling contends that it performed on the modification of the Contract (i. e.,
the re-delivery of the cargo), it did not present any evidence that this modification was in writing.
11
Case 4:22-cv-03488 Document 101 Filed 07/30/26 in TXSD Page 11 of 14

Bertling contends that Qatar breached the Contract when it failed to conduct screening on
the second delivery. After Qatar purportedly "stated that it would permit the cargo to be divided
up , split onto new airway bills, and re-delivered to IAH airport by 7:00 pm on May 3, 2022," (id.
at 1), Bertling successfully re-delivered the cargo by the deadline. When the cargo arrived for the
second time, however, Qatar "did not at any time have staff present to perform the necessary
screening of the cargo." (Id. at 45). Bertling argues that the failure to have the staff present for the
screening was a breach of contract. On the other hand, Qatar sets out a different series of events.
Qatar provided summary judgment evidence that Qatar and WFS employees specifically advised
ACS "NOT to re-tender the cargo, as [they] were well past cut off and did not have the manpower
to accept it" and that "[i]t was discussed that .. . [Qatar] would unfortunately reject the return
(which WAS communicated to the customer via phone call)." (Doc. No. 58-2 at 24, 51). The Court
finds that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Qatar breached its duty by failing
to screen the re-delivery of the shipment.
Bertling also argues that, at the very least, Qatar breached the Contract because it failed to
refund the Charter Price. The Contract states:
If due to refusal, cancellation, or late granting of any authorisation, clearance, or
permit required for the performance of the Programme, or for unforeseen Aircraft
failures, crew limitations, safety or security concerns, or if due to any other cause
beyond the control of Qatar Airways, Qatar Airways is unable within a reasonable
time to perform the Programme, 	then 	Qatar Airways may, at its absolute
discretion, but without obligation, immediately suspend or terminate the Contract
upon notice to the Charterer. In the event of termination or suspension of the
Contract in accordance with the foregoing , no penalty shall be due or payable by
either Party and both Parties will be absolved of all liabilities for any and all losses
suffered therefrom and any payments of deposits or Charter Price made by or on
behalf of the Charterer to Qatar Airways will be refunded to the Charterer within
a reasonable period of time ....
(Doc. No. 50-2 at 17) (§ 7 .1) (emphasis added). Bertling argues that the cargo was delayed because
of "crew limitations" and/or "security concerns," and accordingly, Qatar was required to refund
12
Case 4:22-cv-03488 Document 101 Filed 07/30/26 in TXSD Page 12 of 14

the Charter Price. The plain text of the Contract, however, clearly states that even if "Qatar
Airways is unable within a reasonable time to perform the Programme" due to "crew limitations
[or] safety or security concerns," Qatar had "absolute discretion" and was "without obligation" to
"immediately suspend or terminate the Contract." (Id.). The Contract then provides that "[i]n the
event of termination or suspension," then "any payments of deposits or Charter Price made by or
on behalf of the Charterer to Qatar Airways will be refunded." (Id.). While Bertling reads this
provision to mean the failure to perform required Qatar to refund the Charter Price, the plain text
of the Contract states that Qatar is only required to refund the Charter Price if and only if Qatar (in
its absolute discretion) decided to suspend or terminate the Contract. (Id.). Qatar did not choose to
suspend or terminate the Contract, and accordingly, under this specific provision, Qatar has no
contractual obligation to refund the Charter Price.
The Court finds that while the argument that Qatar breached the specific provision of the
Contract by failing to issue the refund fails for the reasons set forth above, there is still a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether Qatar breached the Contract by failing to screen the re-
delivery of the cargo and then transport the cargo. Ultimately, however, the Court notes that a
finding that Qatar breached the ACS- Qatar Contract could result in a refund or damages covering
the amounts paid by Bertling. The Court finds that the genuine disputes of material fact that
pervade the performance and breach elements of the breach of contract claim require this Court to
DENY the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 50) on the remaining elements of the
breach of contract claim.
IV. 	Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS-IN-PART AND DENIES-IN-
PART Bertling' s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 50). The Court finds that there
13
Case 4:22-cv-03488 Document 101 Filed 07/30/26 in TXSD Page 13 of 14

is no genuine dispute of material fact that Bertling has the right to enforce the ACS- Qatar Contract
as a principal. Accordingly, the Court finds , as a matter of law, the first element of Bertling's
breach of contract claim against Qatar is satisfied. The Court, however, finds that genuine disputes
of material facts exist as to the remaining elements of the breach of contract claim. The remaining
three elements of the breach of contract claim, performance or tendered performance by the
plaintiff, breach of contract by the defendant, and damages sustained by the plaintiff as a result of
the breach, are still at issue in this case.
It is so ordered. -\"---.
Signed on this the 	3° 	day of July 2026.
/'y"v=l½
Andrew S. Han en ........
United States District Judge
14
Case 4:22-cv-03488 Document 101 Filed 07/30/26 in TXSD Page 14 of 14