BFE LLC Complaint

Electronically Filed
3/5/2020 5:11 PM
Steven D. Grierson
CLERK OF THE COURT
1 ACOM
Cami M. Perkins (#7612)
2 Ryan T. O’Malley (#12461)
HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC
3 3800 Howard Hughes Pkwy., Ste. 1000
Las Vegas, NV 89169
4 Telephone: (702) 257-1483
Facsimile: (702) 567-1568
5 E-Mail: cmp@h2law.com; rto@h2law.com
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff
7 DISTRICT COURT
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
8
BFE, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; Case No.: A-19-805287-B
9
Plaintiff, Dept. No.: XVI
10
v.
11 CITY OF BOULDER CITY, a Nevada municipal FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
12 corporation; BOULDER CITY FIRE

DEPARTMENT, a political subdivision of the ARBITRATION EXEMPTION:
13 State of Nevada; DOES I through X, inclusive;
ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES I through X,
14 inclusive, 1. Action Seeking Declaratory Relief
15 Defendants. 2. Action Seeking Extraordinary Relief
3. Amount in Controversy
16
17 Plaintiff BFE, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (“Plaintiff”), by and through its
18 undersigned counsel of record, hereby allege and complain against Defendant CITY OF
19 BOULDER CITY, a Nevada Municipal Corporation, (“Boulder City”), and Defendant
20 BOULDER CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT, a political subdivision of the State of Nevada (“BCFD”
21 collectively with Boulder City “Defendants”) as follows:
22 PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
23 1. Plaintiff is a Nevada limited liability company duly formed and validly existing in
24 the State of Nevada.
25 2. Boulder City is a Nevada municipal corporation.

26 3. BCFD is a political subdivision of the State of Nevada.
27 4. Plaintiff does not know the true names of the individuals, corporations,
28
_____________________________________________________________________________
1 of 14
Case Number: A-19-805287-B
1 partnerships and entities sued and identified in fictitious names as DOES I through X and ROE
2 BUSINESS ENTITIES I through X. Plaintiff will request leave of this Court to amend this
3 Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of each fictitious defendant when Plaintiff
4 discovers the information.
5 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis allege, that Defendants, and
6 each of them, in committing the acts and omissions alleged in this Complaint, acted as agents and
7 servants of the other Defendants, and acted within the scope of their authority as agents and
8 servants of the other Defendants, or, in the alternative, approved and ratified the acts and
9 omissions of the other Defendants or third parties.
10 6. This Court has jurisdiction over the instant dispute, and venue is proper in this
11 Court, because the dispute involves the interpretation of Nevada law as applied to a Nevada
12 business.
13 7. In addition, this Court has jurisdiction because Boulder City is a Nevada municipal
14 corporation and BCFD is a political subdivision of the State of Nevada. Defendants are also
15 conducting business in Nevada, has entered into contracts regarding business being conducted in
16 Nevada, and have availed itself of the benefit of Nevada’s laws and regulations.
17 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
18 8. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 7 of this Complaint as

19 though fully set forth herein.
20 A. The Sublease Allows Self-Fueling

21
9. On or about March 28, 2007, Plaintiff entered into a sublease (“Sublease”) as
22
tenant with Boulder City Airport Properties, LLC as sublandlord (“Sublandlord”) to be an airport
23
fixed-base operator with full services (the “Business”) at certain tracts of land located in the city
24
of Boulder City, State of Nevada at the Boulder City Airport (the “Premises”).
25
10. Boulder City expressly executed a separate consent form as the Sublandlord’s
26
landlord to ratify the Sublease (“Consent for Sublease”).
27
11. Section 7(a) of the Sublease provides that Plaintiff “shall use the Premises…for
28
_____________________________________________________________________________
2 of 14
1 any use allowed by the Master Lease and governing laws….”
2 12. Section 7(c) of the Sublease provides that Plaintiff “may obtain aircraft fuel from
3 the Boulder City Airport fuel farm at the fuel farm’s cost, or from any other provider of aircraft
4 fuel at the lowest cost available, without any payment of any fee or surcharge to Sublandlord or
5 BFE, LLC.”
6 13. Prior to entering into the Sublease with Plaintiff, the Sublandlord had entered into
7 a lease with Defendant on April 1, 2016 for the Premises and additional property located at the
8 Boulder City Airport (the “Master Lease”).
9 14. Exhibit C to the Master Lease provided “Permitted and Authorized Uses.” Section
10 II(C)(1) of Exhibit C authorizes Plaintiff to provide fuel dispensing services from mobile tenders
11 for dispensing fuel at aircraft parking/tie down locations. Section II(C)(4) of Exhibit C authorizes
12 Plaintiff to obtain fuel from Plaintiff’s fuel tanks so long as Plaintiff pays additional charges as
13 set forth therein.
14 B. Defendants Allowed Plaintiff to Self-Fuel
15 15. In accordance with Section II(C) of Exhibit C to the Master Lease, Plaintiff been
16 engaged in fueling and refueling services at its leased Premises for more than a decade, including
17 through the use of certain mobile fuel tankers, similar to countless other tenants at the Boulder
18 City Airport.
19 16. Around September of 2019, Plaintiff, in reliance upon its authorization to conduct
20 fueling and refueling activities under the Lease, purchased a new 10,000-gallon capacity fuel
21 tanker (the “Tanker”).
22
C. Defendants Arbitrarily Decided Plaintiff’s Tanker Violated
23 IFC Chapter 57 Section 5704.2.2
24 17. On or around September 5, 2019, Bob Fahnestock, Manager of Plaintiff (“Mr.
25 Fahnestock”), received a Warning Notice issued by BCFD and delivered by Brad Stasik (“Mr.
26 Stasik”), alleging non-compliance with certain codes, including inapplicable codes from third-
27
28
_____________________________________________________________________________
3 of 14
1 party UL Standards, that pertain to the “permanent” storage and dispensing of Class 1 flammable
2 liquids for fueling of aircraft (the “Notice”).
3 18. Upon delivery of the Notice, Mr. Stasik told Mr. Fahnestock that Plaintiff was
4 improperly storing fuel at the Property by using the Tanker as a “permanent” storage tank, in part
5 because it purportedly had no containment system (the “Meeting”). Mr. Fahnestock explained to
6 Mr. Stasik, the Tanker is state of the art and it is double walled and equipped with a complete
7 containment system as part of its safety features. Out of the approximately 10 other fuel trucks
8 at Boulder City Airport, no other mobile refueler has any secondary containment. Mr. Fahnestock
9 also explained the Tanker was not built for compliance with UL Standards’ codes and did not
10 need to comply with UL Standards’ codes because the Tanker is driven on roadways and complies
11 with the much higher standards set by the Department of Transportation.
12 19. Additionally, at the Meeting Mr. Stasik asserted that the Tanker was incapable of
13 fueling aircraft, to which Mr. Fahnestock replied that it is capable of refueling helicopters and
14 turbine powered aircraft and that the Tanker was specifically constructed for this purpose, is legal
15 in all of the United States and Canada for such purpose, and is legal and certified by the
16 Department of Transportation for highway transport.
17 20. Mr. Fahnestock also told Mr. Stasik at the Meeting that the Tanker is driven four
18 to five times per month into Las Vegas, Nevada where it is refueled at McCarran International
19 Airport in compliance with all of McCarran International Airport’s rules and regulations.
20 21. Mr. Stasik next stated that a containment system was required for fuel transfers
21 from the Tanker to trucks and Mr. Fahnestock then showed Mr. Stasik the portable curb system
22 Plaintiff already purchased for this purpose.
23 22. All fuel deliveries that Boulder City and Boulder City Airport receive at the
24 Boulder City Airport fuel farm currently fail to meet the standards which Mr. Stasik was
25 referencing during the Meeting, all of which Plaintiff is already meeting, including the lack of a
26 fire suppression and containment system, double walled tanks, and the Airport does not currently
27 have a supervisor trained in fuel.
28
_____________________________________________________________________________
4 of 14
1 23. Moreover, Boulder City’s fuel farm is woefully inadequate and fails to meet
2 several minimum standard safety requirements.
3 24. On September 10, 2019, without any prior notice, Steve Walton, in his capacity as
1
4 the acting Fire Chief for BCFD (“Mr. Walton”), entered onto the Property to conduct an
5 inspection of the Tanker without any of Plaintiff’s personnel present (the “Inspection”). Plaintiff
6 has no records of any inspections having been conducted at the Property for any of Plaintiff’s
7 vehicles in the thirteen years prior to the Inspection.
8 25. The Notice demanded that Plaintiff remove the Tanker from the Property no later
9 than September 12, 2019. It originally referred to Chapter 57 of the 2012 International Fire Code
10 (“IFC”) and National Fire Protection Association 30-2012, each of which are extensive and
11 voluminous codes, without citations to any specific provisions purported to be violated by the
12 presence of the Tanker at the Airport. Plaintiff made numerous requests to Mr. Walton and to the
13 Boulder City Attorney’s Office as well requesting clarification regarding the alleged violations.
14 26. Not until September 13, 2019 did Mr. Stasik finally made specific reference to
15 Chapter 57 Section 5704.2.2 of the IFC, which reads, “Tank cars and tank vehicles shall not be
16 used as storage tanks.”
17 D. Defendants Arbitrarily Required Plaintiff to Apply for a

Construction Permit to Use the Tanker that Plaintiff Purchased
18 Fully Constructed
19 27. On September 13, 2019, Mr. Stasik also required Plaintiff to apply for a
20 construction permit to use the Tanker pursuant to IFC Chapter 1 Section 105, which requires
21 construction permits “To install, construct or alter tank vehicles, equipment, tanks, plants,
22 terminals, wells, fuel dispensing stations, refineries, distilleries and similar facilities where
23 flammable and combustible liquids are produced, processed, transported, stored, dispensed and
24 used.”
25 28. Plaintiff purchased the Tanker fully constructed and did not alter it in any way so
26 it was unclear to Plaintiff how or why Defendant was requiring Plaintiff to apply for this
27
1
Mr. Walton has also worked as a flight instructor for one of Plaintiff’s subtenants in Plaintiff’s hangar.
28
_____________________________________________________________________________
5 of 14
1 “construction” permit. The construction permit was not designed for a fuel trailer permit and the
2 fee schedule listed permit price should be $3,500, but Boulder City reduced it to $325 without
3 reason.
4 29. Nevertheless, to appease Defendants and continue its business operations without
5 delay and without the need for court intervention, Plaintiff submitted the construction permit
6 application on September 17, 2019.
7 30. On or about October 10, Defendants disapproved Plaintiff’s construction permit
8 application (although this decision was withheld from Plaintiff until October 17, 2019).
9 E. Defendants are Arbitrarily, Selectively, and Improperly Enforcing Fire

Codes Against Plaintiff for Improper Financial Gain
10
11 31. Plaintiff’s ability to provide fuel to itself, its subtenants, and others puts Plaintiff
12 in competition with Boulder City as a fuel provider.
13 32. Based upon information and belief, Defendants are arbitrarily, selectively, and
14 improperly enforcing fire codes against Plaintiff for improper financial gain.
15 33. Plaintiff has used mobile fuel tankers similar to the Tanker for decades at Boulder
16 City Airport without Defendants attempting to prevent such use pursuant to IFC Chapter 57
17 Section 5704.2.2 and/or IFC Chapter 1 Section 105.
18 34. Other tenants at the Boulder City Airport continue to use mobile fuel tankers
19 similar to the Tanker without Defendants attempting to prevent such use pursuant to IFC Chapter
20 57 Section 5704.2.2 and/or IFC Chapter 1 Section 105.
21 35. Exhibit C to the Master Lease expressly authorizes Plaintiff to use the Tanker.
22 36. Defendants arbitrarily decided Plaintiff’s Tanker violated IFC Chapter 57 Section
23 5704.2.2 in order to force Plaintiff to purchase fuel from Boulder City’s fuel farm and prevent
24 Plaintiff from providing fuel to any other potential fuel customers.
25 37. Defendants arbitrarily required Plaintiff to apply for a construction permit to use
26 the Tanker that Plaintiff purchased fully constructed pursuant to IFC Chapter 1 Section 105, and
27 then denied Plaintiff’s application for the construction permit, in order to force Plaintiff to
28
_____________________________________________________________________________
6 of 14
1 purchase fuel from Boulder City’s fuel farm and prevent Plaintiff from providing fuel to any other
2 potential fuel customers.
3 38. Plaintiff’s right to self-fuel is further protected by 49 USC 47101, which provides
4 that airport sponsors that have accepted federal funds under the Airport Improvement Plan are
5 contractually obligated to take certain actions in running the airport (“Grant Assurances”),
6 including allowing an aircraft owner to provide fuel for his or her own airplane and not imposing
7 rules that are so onerous as to effectively deny self-fueling.
8 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
9 (Declaratory Relief – IFC Chapter 57 Section 5704.2.2)

10
39. Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs
11
of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
12
40. There is a justiciable controversy between Plaintiff and Defendants relating to
13
whether Plaintiff’s Tanker is a “storage tank” pursuant to Boulder City Fire Code Chapter 57
14
Section 5704.2.2.
15
41. A declaration of the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of Plaintiff and
16
Defendants is essential to determine their respective obligations in connection with the above-
17
mentioned issue.
18
42. Plaintiff requests the Court to declare that Plaintiff’s Tanker is not a “storage tank”
19
pursuant to IFC Chapter 57 Section 5704.2.2 because:
20
a. The Tanker is mobile and is moved on approximately a weekly basis;
21
b. The Tanker will remain mobile at all times and will remain in compliance with
22
all highway standards and standards imposed by McCarran International
23
Airport for refueling at their stations;
24
c. The Tanker is not parked permanently on the Property in lieu of properly
25
constructing a permanent storage tank;
26
d. The Tanker is a portable/mobile tender comparable to all other refueling
27
equipment without any requirement for inspections, special permits, or other
28
_____________________________________________________________________________
7 of 14
1 special qualification;
2 e. Exhibit C to the Master Lease expressly authorizes Plaintiff to use the Tanker;
3 f. Defendants cannot impose rules that are so onerous as to effectively deny self-
4 fueling; and therefore,
5 g. The Tanker is not substituting for a storage tank as contemplated by IFC
6 Chapter 57 Section 5704.2.2.
7 43. As a direct result of the aforementioned conduct on the part of Defendants, Plaintiff
8 has been forced to retain the services of the undersigned counsel to pursue this matter and are thus
9 entitled to an award of their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated herewith.
10 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

11 (Declaratory Relief – IFC Chapter 1 Section 105)

12
13
14
45. There is a justiciable controversy between Plaintiff and Defendants relating to
15
whether Plaintiff should be required to obtain a construction permit to use the Tanker pursuant to
16
IFC Chapter 1 Section 105.
17
46. A declaration of the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of Plaintiff and
18
Defendants is essential to determine their respective obligations in connection with the above-
19
mentioned issue.
20
47. Plaintiff requests the Court to declare that Plaintiff is not required to obtain a
21
construction permit to use the Tanker pursuant to IFC Chapter 1 Section 105 because:
22
a. Plaintiff purchased the Tanker fully constructed and did not alter it in any way;
23
b. Exhibit C to the Master Lease expressly authorizes Plaintiff to use the Tanker;
24
and
25
c. Defendants cannot impose rules that are so onerous as to effectively deny self-
26
fueling.
27
28
_____________________________________________________________________________
8 of 14
1 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
2 (Permanent Injunctive)
3
4
5
49. As set forth above, Defendants’ application of IFC Chapter 57 Section 5704.2.2
6
and IFC Chapter 1 Section 105 to Plaintiff’s Tanker was unlawful, clearly erroneous, arbitrary,
7
and capricious.
8
50. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful, clearly erroneous, arbitrary, and capricious
9
application of IFC Chapter 57 Section 5704.2.2 and IFC Chapter 1 Section 105 to Plaintiff’s
10
Tanker, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer irreparable harm with no adequate remedy
11
at law.
12
51. Defendants will suffer no harm by allowing Plaintiff to use the Tanker to engage
13
in fueling and refueling services at its leased Premises as it has for more than a decade with similar
14
mobile fuel tankers and as countless other tenants at the Boulder City Airport continue to do.
15
52. Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits in this litigation.
16
53. The public interest favors Plaintiff because the actions and decisions of the
17
government should comply with Nevada laws and regulations, should be free of any corruption,
18
and should not be arbitrary and capricious.
19
54. Plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunctive relief prohibiting and restraining
20
Defendants from:
21
a. Using IFC Chapter 57 Section 5704.2.2 as a pretext to prevent Plaintiff from
22
using the Tanker to self-fuel;
23
b. Using IFC Chapter 1 Section 105 as a pretext to require Plaintiff to obtain a
24
construction permit for the Tanker despite the fact that Plaintiff purchased the
25
Tanker fully constructed and has not made any alterations to the Tanker.
26
55. As a direct result of the aforementioned conduct on the part of Defendants, Plaintiff
27
has been forced to retain the services of the undersigned counsel to pursue this matter and are thus
28
_____________________________________________________________________________
9 of 14
1 entitled to an award of their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated herewith.
2 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
3 (Petition for Writ of Mandamus)

4 56. Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs
5 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
6 57. Defendants have failed to perform an act which the law compels them to perform:
7 allow Plaintiff to use the Tanker for self-fueling.
8 58. There is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to
9 correct Defendants’ failure to perform the acts required by law.
10 59. Plaintiff therefore petitions this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to Defendants
11 compelling them to allow Plaintiff to use the Tanker for self-fueling.
12 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

13 (Promissory Estoppel)
16 61. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were aware of IFC Chapter 57 Section
17 5704.2.2 and IFC Chapter 1 Section 105.
18 62. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were aware that Plaintiff, in accordance
19 with Section II(C) of Exhibit C to the Master Lease, had been engaged in fueling and refueling
20 services at its leased Premises for more than a decade, including through the use of certain mobile
21 fuel tankers, similar to countless other tenants at the Boulder City Airport.
22 63. At no time prior to prior to Plaintiff’s purchase and use of the Tanker did
23 Defendants attempt to restrict Plaintiff’s fueling and refueling services at its leased Premises,
24 including through the use of certain mobile fuel tankers similar to the Tanker.
25 64. Based on Defendants allowing Plaintiff to engage in fueling and refueling services
26 at its leased Premises for decades, including through the use of certain mobile fuel tankers similar
27 to the Tanker, and Defendants allowing countless other tenants at the Boulder City Airport to do
28
_____________________________________________________________________________
10 of 14
1 the same, Plaintiff had a right to believe Defendants intended to allow Plaintiff to engage in
2 fueling and refueling services at its leased Premises, including through the use of the Tanker.
3 65. Plaintiff did not know that IFC Chapter 57 Section 5704.2.2 or IFC Chapter 1
4 Section 105 could prevent Plaintiff’s use of the Tanker to engage in fueling and refueling services
5 at its leased Premises.
6 66. Plaintiff relied on the foregoing conduct of Defendants to Plaintiff’s detriment in
7 purchasing the Tanker.
8 67. Defendants’ conduct has resulted in actual damage to Plaintiff.
9 68. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ aforementioned conduct, Plaintiff
10 has been damaged in a substantial sum in excess of $15,000.00, the exact amount of which will
11 be set forth at the time of trial in this matter.
13 has been forced to retain the services of the undersigned counsel to defend and prosecute this
14 matter and is thus entitled to an award of their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated
15 herewith from Defendants.
16 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
17 (Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)

20 71. Prospective contractual relationships exist between Plaintiff and its subtenants for
21 Plaintiff to provide fueling services to its subtenants using the Tanker.
22 72. Defendants knew of the prospective contractual relationships between Plaintiff and
23 its subtenants.
24 73. Defendants intended to harm these prospective contractual relationships by

25 preventing Plaintiff from using the Tanker to provide fuel to its subtenants so that Plaintiff’s
26 subtenants would purchase fuel from Boulder City instead of Plaintiff.
27 74. Defendants had no justification to prevent Plaintiff from using the Tanker to
28
_____________________________________________________________________________
11 of 14
1 provide fuel to its subtenants.
2 75. Defendants’ conduct has prevented Plaintiff’s prospective contractual
3 relationships with its subtenants.
4 76. Defendants’ conduct has resulted in actual damage to Plaintiff.
12 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
13 (Breach of Contract against Boulder City)

16 80. Plaintiff and Boulder City are parties to the Master Lease because Plaintiff entered
17 into the Sublease and Boulder City entered into the Consent for Sublease which provides that
18 Plaintiff “shall use the Premises…for any use allowed by the Master Lease and governing
19 laws…”.
20 81. Exhibit C to the Master Lease authorizes Plaintiff to provide fuel dispensing
21 services from mobile tenders.
22 82. Plaintiff entering into the Sublease and agreeing to use the Premises for any use
23 allowed by the Master Lease and governing laws which was supported by valuable consideration
24 and constitutes a valid and existing contract.
25 83. Plaintiff performed all conditions, covenants and promises required of it under the
26 Sublease and Master Lease, except to the extent that such performance was prevented, excused,
27 or waived by Boulder City.
28
_____________________________________________________________________________
12 of 14
1 84. Defendant Boulder City breached its obligations under the Sublease and Master
2 Lease by, inter alia, preventing Plaintiff from using the Tanker to provide fuel dispensing services
3 as expressly permitted under the Master Lease.

11 PRAYER
12 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff pray for judgment against Defendants as follows:

13
1. For a declaration that Plaintiff’s Tanker is not a “storage tank” pursuant to Boulder
14
City Fire Code Chapter 57 Section 5704.2.2;
15
2. For a declaration that Plaintiff is not required to obtain a construction permit to use
16
the Tanker pursuant to IFC Chapter 1 Section 105;
17
3. For permanent injunctive relief;
18
4. For general damages in excess of $15,000;
19
5. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
20
6. For all costs and expenses incurred by Plaintiff in enforcing its rights, including,
21
but not limited to, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this
22
action; and
23
7. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
24
25
26
27
28
_____________________________________________________________________________
13 of 14
th
1 Dated this 5 day of March, 2020.
2 HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC
3 /s/Cami M. Perkins
By: ___________________________________
4 Cami M. Perkins (#7612)
Ryan T. O’Malley (#12461)
5 3800 Howard Hughes Pkwy., Ste. 1000
Las Vegas, NV 89169
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff
7
4841-9555-5510, v. 1
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
_____________________________________________________________________________
14 of 14

BFE LLC Complaint

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

BFE LLC Complaint

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Electronically Filed

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff

12 corporation; BOULDER CITY FIRE

19 BOULDER CITY, a Nevada Municipal Corporation, (“Boulder City”), and Defendant

21 collectively with Boulder City “Defendants”) as follows:

22 PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

25 2. Boulder City is a Nevada municipal corporation.

4 discovers the information.

9 omissions of the other Defendants or third parties.

18 8. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 7 of this Complaint as

20 A. The Sublease Allows Self-Fueling

8 Boulder City Airport (the “Master Lease”).

13 set forth therein.

14 B. Defendants Allowed Plaintiff to Self-Fuel

21 tanker (the “Tanker”).

24 17. On or around September 5, 2019, Bob Fahnestock, Manager of Plaintiff (“Mr.

2 liquids for fueling of aircraft (the “Notice”).

11 with the much higher standards set by the Department of Transportation.

16 Department of Transportation for highway transport.

22 Plaintiff already purchased for this purpose.

27 have a supervisor trained in fuel.

2 several minimum standard safety requirements.

7 vehicles in the thirteen years prior to the Inspection.

16 used as storage tanks.”

17 D. Defendants Arbitrarily Required Plaintiff to Apply for a

6 application on September 17, 2019.

7 30. On or about October 10, Defendants disapproved Plaintiff’s construction permit

9 E. Defendants are Arbitrarily, Selectively, and Improperly Enforcing Fire

12 in competition with Boulder City as a fuel provider.

17 Section 5704.2.2 and/or IFC Chapter 1 Section 105.

20 57 Section 5704.2.2 and/or IFC Chapter 1 Section 105.

24 Plaintiff from providing fuel to any other potential fuel customers.

2 potential fuel customers.

7 rules that are so onerous as to effectively deny self-fueling.

8 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

9 (Declaratory Relief – IFC Chapter 57 Section 5704.2.2)

4 fueling; and therefore,

5 g. The Tanker is not substituting for a storage tank as contemplated by IFC

6 Chapter 57 Section 5704.2.2.

10 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

11 (Declaratory Relief – IFC Chapter 1 Section 105)

2 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

3 (Petition for Writ of Mandamus)

11 compelling them to allow Plaintiff to use the Tanker for self-fueling.

12 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

5 at its leased Premises.

6 66. Plaintiff relied on the foregoing conduct of Defendants to Plaintiff’s detriment in

7 purchasing the Tanker.

8 67. Defendants’ conduct has resulted in actual damage to Plaintiff.

9 68. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ aforementioned conduct, Plaintiff

11 be set forth at the time of trial in this matter.

15 herewith from Defendants.

16 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

17 (Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)

24 73. Defendants intended to harm these prospective contractual relationships by

26 subtenants would purchase fuel from Boulder City instead of Plaintiff.

2 75. Defendants’ conduct has prevented Plaintiff’s prospective contractual

3 relationships with its subtenants.

4 76. Defendants’ conduct has resulted in actual damage to Plaintiff.

5 77. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ aforementioned conduct, Plaintiff

7 be set forth at the time of trial in this matter.

11 herewith from Defendants.

12 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

13 (Breach of Contract against Boulder City)