Casa Grande Homes Inc v. Cote et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CASA GRANDE HOMES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHEL CÔTÉ et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
) 	Case No. CIV-24-779-PRW
)
)
)
)
ORDER
Before the Court are Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. 30) and Motion for
Summary Judgment (Dkt. 31). Both motions have been fully briefed and are now ripe for
decision. Although Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. 30) was filed before their
Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 31), the Court addresses the summary judgment
motion first because it resolves this case on the merits. For the reasons that follow, the
Court GRANTS the Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 31).
Background
This action arises from the sale of a 1973 Cessna 421B aircraft from Defendants
Michel Côté and C&S Ltd., to Plaintiff Casa Grande Homes, Inc. In January 2022, Côté
and Plaintiff entered into a purchase agreement in which Côté agreed to sell the aircraft in
“‘as is’ condition … mak[ing] no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the fitness
Case 5:24-cv-00779-PRW Document 45 Filed 03/12/26 Page 1 of 7

2
or condition of the aircraft or equipment” to Casa Grande for a total price of $199,000.1
Casa Grande took possession of the aircraft in February 2022, but sent a demand letter to
Defendants on October 3, 2022, in which it claimed that, while there were “no issues” with
the aircraft indicated in the logbook, an inspection turned up “multiple problems with
pressurization, rust and airworthiness.”2 Plaintiff claimed in the demand letter to have spent
in excess of $150,000 on repairs and accused Defendants Côté and C&S of failing to
disclose material information related to the aircraft’s condition and airworthiness.3 Plaintiff
now sues Defendants Côté and C&S for breach of contract and detrimental reliance and all
Defendants for fraud in the inducement, related to alleged falsified entries in the aircraft’s
logbooks and maintenance records.
Legal Standard
Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires “[t]he court [to] grant
summary judgment 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.” In considering a motion for
summary judgment, a court must view all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most
favorable to the nonmovant.4 Courts are not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth
of the matter asserted, but instead are to determine only whether there is a genuine dispute
1 Purchase Agreement, (Dkt. 31, Ex. 1), ¶3.
2 Demand Letter (Dkt. 31, Ex. 7), at 1.
3 Id.
4 Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 670 (10th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted).
Case 5:24-cv-00779-PRW Document 45 Filed 03/12/26 Page 2 of 7

3
for trial before the fact-finder.5 A fact is “material” if, under the substantive law, it is
essential to the proper disposition of the claim.6 A dispute is “genuine” if there is sufficient
evidence on each side so that a rational trier of fact could resolve the issue for either party.7
When, as here, the nonmoving party has the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial,
the moving party “has both the initial burden of production on a motion for summary
judgment and the burden of establishing that summary judgment is appropriate as a matter
of law.”8 “The moving party may carry its initial burden either by producing affirmative
evidence negating an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim, or by showing that
the nonmoving party does not have enough evidence to carry its burden of persuasion at
trial.”9 “Once the moving party points out the absence of evidence to create a ‘genuine
issue’ of a ‘material fact’ on which the non-moving party bears the burden of proof at trial,
. . . [t]he non-moving party must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue
for trial.”10
5 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986).
6 Id. at 248.
7 Id.
8 Trainor v. Apollo Metal Specialties, Inc., 318 F.3d 976, 979 (10th Cir. 2002), as amended
on denial of reh’g (Jan. 23, 2003) (citing Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210
F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000)).
9 Id.
10 Otis v. Canadian Valley-Reeves Meat Co., 884 F. Supp. 446, 449–50 (W.D. Okla. 1994),
aff’d, 52 F.3d 338 (10th Cir. 1995) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248).
Case 5:24-cv-00779-PRW Document 45 Filed 03/12/26 Page 3 of 7

4
Analysis
I. 	Plaintiff has failed to make out its claim for breach of contract.
As 	a 	preliminary 	matter, 	Plaintiff 	has 	produced 	no 	evidence 	it 	suffered 	a
compensable injury. Under Rule 56(e)(2), the Court may consider facts undisputed when
a party fails to support an assertion of fact or, as here, properly address another party’s
assertion of fact. Plaintiff agrees with Defendants that it purchased the aircraft for
$199,000, spent $175,278.92 to address the aircraft’s alleged “undisclosed problems,” and
believes the aircraft now to be worth approximately $375,000.11 Because the aircraft’s
value increased by more than $175,000 after Casa Grande spent $175,000 on repairs,
Defendants argue this implies the aircraft was worth at least $199,000 before repairs were
made, meaning Casa Grande spent $199,000 on an aircraft it agrees was worth $199,000.
Plaintiff has produced no evidence to suggest that Defendants are incorrect in their
assertion that the plane was worth what Plaintiff paid at the time of purchase.
Under Oklahoma law, “[a]s a general rule, damages for breach of contract are
limited to the pecuniary loss sustained, and exemplary or punitive damages are not
recoverable.”12 Accordingly, and separate and apart from the fact that Plaintiff has failed
to produce any evidence supporting its claim that Defendant breached the purchase
agreement, and that the purchase agreement clearly stated that the aircraft would be sold in
11 Pl.’s Resp. (Dkt. 32), ¶¶28–30.
12 Z.D. Howard Co. v. Cartwright, 537 P.2d 345, 347 (Okla. 1975).
Case 5:24-cv-00779-PRW Document 45 Filed 03/12/26 Page 4 of 7

5
as-is condition with no guarantees as to its airworthiness, the Court GRANTS summary
judgment in favor of Defendants Côté and C&S as to Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim.
II. 	Plaintiff has provided no evidence to support its fraud claims.
What Plaintiff styles as a claim for “detrimental reliance” simply appears to be one
for fraudulent inducement, as the constituent elements include Plaintiff showing “(1) a
material misrepresentation; (2) known to be false at the time made; (3) made with specific
intent that a party would rely on it; and (4) reliance and resulting damage.”13 Accordingly,
the Court collapses the claim for detrimental reliance into the fraudulent inducement claim.
Plaintiff 	has 	failed 	to 	produce 	any 	evidence 	supporting 	its 	claims 	against
Defendants. In their Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 31), Defendants claim, relying
on the text of the purchase agreement, that they made no representations as to the condition
of the aircraft and disclaimed all warranties.14 Plaintiff replies by stating that the aircraft
could not pressurize and was in disrepair.15 Only once does Plaintiff shed any real light on
its claim, asserting that Defendants advertised the aircraft as being airworthy.16 But in the
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the logbooks and maintenance records were falsified, and
it was those misrepresentations that induced Plaintiff to buy the aircraft.17
13 Oak Tree Partners, LLC v. Williams, 458 P.3d 626, 646 (Okla. Civ. Apps. 2018)
(citations omitted).
14 Mot. Summ. Judg. (Dkt. 31), ¶7.
15 Pl.’s Resp. (Dkt. 32), ¶7.
16 Id. at ¶3.
17 Compl. (Dkt. 1), ¶¶33–34.
Case 5:24-cv-00779-PRW Document 45 Filed 03/12/26 Page 5 of 7

6
Even after the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Dkt. 23), ordering
Plaintiff to produce the logbooks and maintenance records and point to what entries were
falsified, Plaintiff has failed to produce such evidence. Therefore, pursuant to Rule
56(e)(2), the Court considers Defendants’ assertions conceded that the purchase agreement
made clear that the sale of the aircraft was in as-is condition with no representation or
warranties as to its condition. Because Plaintiff has produced no evidence that there was a
material misrepresentation, there can necessarily be no showing (which Plaintiff has not
attempted) that Defendants knew of any misrepresentations or acted with scienter in
making them. Further, as previously discussed, Plaintiff has also failed to show any
damages, as Plaintiff has offered no evidence rebutting Defendants’ claim that Plaintiff
purchased an aircraft valued at $199,000 for $199,000. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS
summary judgment to all Defendants as to Plaintiff’s fraud claims.
III. 	Dismissal for failure to comply with court orders would have been an alternate,
adequate basis for disposition.
Had the Court not had the opportunity to decide the case on the merits, it would
have dismissed the action for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order (Dkt. 28)
granting Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Dkt. 23). The Court issued an Order (Dkt. 40) on
February 19, 2026, for Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for
failure to comply with Judge Goodwin’s Order (Dkt. 28) and produce the discovery
material requested by Defendants. On March 5, 2026, Plaintiff replied and simply stated it
had provided the aircraft’s logbooks to Defendants at some point in 2026, months after the
deadline in Judge Goodwin’s original Order (Dkt. 28). In Response (Dkt. 44), Defendants
Case 5:24-cv-00779-PRW Document 45 Filed 03/12/26 Page 6 of 7

7
explained that Plaintiff’s production of the logbooks did not satisfy Judge Goodwin’s
original Order (Dkt. 28). Plaintiff, for instance, still has failed to identify in all respects
how the aircraft was not flight-worthy, the damages with line-item specificity that it had
sustained, or portions of the logbooks and maintenance records that were alleged to have
been falsified.18 The Court’s February 19, 2026 Order includes the Court’s consideration
of the factors listed in Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds19 and warned Plaintiff, pursuant to the
Court’s analysis of the Ehrenhaus factors, that dismissal for failure to comply would be a
likely outcome.20 Accordingly, dismissal would have been appropriate grounds for
disposition of this matter had the Court not granted judgment as matter of law.
Conclusion
For the reasons previously stated, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment (Dkt. 31). A separate judgment will follow.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of March 2026.
18 Def.s’ Resp. (Dkt. 44), at 2–3.
19 965 F.2d 916, 920 (10th Cir. 1992) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
20 Order (Dkt. 40), at 4–5.
Case 5:24-cv-00779-PRW Document 45 Filed 03/12/26 Page 7 of 7