Foundation Aviation, the Brea, California private jet charter operator run by CEO Timothy Lomakin, faces a growing set of lawsuits from brokers, lenders, and service providers who say the company took their payments, cancelled their flights, and never returned the money. As of mid-2026, Firm Foundation Aviation, LLC (doing business as Foundation Aviation) and Lomakin have been sued more than half a dozen times, and court judgments already entered against the company exceed $800,000.
What Plaintiffs Are Alleging
The complaints follow a strikingly similar pattern. A broker or customer wires tens of thousands of dollars for a charter flight. Shortly before departure, Foundation Aviation cancels, citing a vague mechanical or maintenance problem. The company promises a refund, sometimes in writing from Lomakin himself. The refund never arrives. Follow-up messages go unanswered, and the plaintiff ends up paying again for a replacement flight while still out the original payment.
The most detailed account comes from ATI Jet, Inc., which does business as Jetvia. Its federal complaint calls the conduct a “well-established scheme.” Jetvia says it paid $80,000 for a round-trip charter between El Paso and Bozeman, Montana. Foundation Aviation cancelled the outbound leg, blaming a compromised anti-skid system, then delayed the return until Jetvia gave up on it. When Jetvia asked for its money back, Lomakin sent a text message stating, “I’ll make sure the 80k is fully refunded to you.” No refund followed. The complaint further alleges that while Foundation Aviation told Jetvia the aircraft was grounded, the company was “actively flying other paying customers” on the same plane, which carried a $2.4 million purchase lien and an additional lien from Titan Aviation Fuels for unpaid fuel.
Genesis Wing, LLC tells a similar story. It contracted with Foundation Aviation in December 2025 for a charter from Puerto Rico to New York. The departure was delayed a full day for what the company called “crew duty time limitations,” and after takeoff a cracked windshield forced a diversion to Orlando. Genesis Wing says no portion of the charter was ever completed, and although Foundation Aviation wrote that it would “do the math on the partial completion and revert back,” no calculation or refund came. Genesis Wing sued in January 2026 for at least $63,000.
Aviation Charters, Inc. filed suit in February 2026 after paying $53,745 for two flight legs between Trenton, New Jersey, Miami, and Naples, Florida. Foundation Aviation cancelled the return leg, again citing a mechanical issue. Aviation Charters booked a more expensive replacement and says it has never received a refund for the cancelled leg.
Judgments Already Entered
Several of the disputes have produced court judgments, and many were entered by default because Foundation Aviation did not respond to the lawsuit.
- Austin Business Finance: default judgment of $450,731.44 plus court costs, entered in Williamson County, Texas, on August 4, 2025. Firm Foundation Aviation, Taad Aviation, LLC, Timothy Lomakin, and Alissa C. Lomakin were all named and held jointly and severally liable.
- Liberty Funding Source: default judgment of $296,057.70 entered in Niagara County, New York.
- JetSet Group: default judgment of $39,779.13 entered in Orange County, California, in January 2026, on a suit filed in March 2025.
- Hillsboro Aviation, Inc.: judgment of $40,383.80 entered in Washington County, Oregon, in January 2026.
Winning a judgment and actually collecting on one are not the same thing. Reporting on the disputes indicates that some brokers who lost money chose not to sue at all because they doubted they could ever recover. There is no public indication that any of the judgments above has been paid.
Cases Still Pending
- ATI Jet / Jetvia (Case No. 3:26-cv-00205), filed January 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud, seeking compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages exceeding $1 million.
- Genesis Wing, LLC, filed January 16, 2026. Seeks at least $63,000 and names Lomakin personally under an alter ego theory, alleging the corporate entity is a “mere shell” and that Lomakin controlled operations, finances, and refund decisions.
- Aviation Charters, Inc., filed February 13, 2026. Alleges non-refund of $53,745.
- MGFG150 LLC, filed March 25, 2025, in Orange County Superior Court. Involves a Gulfstream G150 and alleges Foundation Aviation operated as a “sham entity,” was inadequately capitalized, commingled funds, and failed to observe corporate formalities. A jury trial is set for April 2027.
- Tailoredspace Brea, LLC, filed August 18, 2025, in Orange County Superior Court. Alleges $320,000 in unpaid office space fees. Foundation Aviation disputed elements of the claim in a November 2025 filing; the plaintiff filed a request for entry of default in October 2025.
- Thoro Corp.: alleges $74,986.20 owed on a receivables loan.
- Apparel Grafix, Inc., filed March 30, 2026, in Orange County Superior Court. Commercial contract dispute; details in available records are limited.
- Pacificom, filed October 23, 2025, in Orange County Superior Court. Commercial contract dispute.
Why the Contracts Make Refunds So Hard to Recover
Part of what makes these fights so bitter is the contract language common to ad hoc charter deals. Foundation Aviation’s agreements, like many in the industry, required 100 percent non-refundable prepayment at booking. A representative clause says that if a flight fails to reach its destination because of “weather, mechanical interruption, or aircraft or crew unavailability,” the client still owes for the completed portion of the trip. Another clause disclaims any guarantee of “any speed, route, departure, or arrival time or date.”
For brokers, the math is especially punishing. When an operator cancels, the broker usually has to arrange a “recovery flight” at a premium on short notice. Standard contracts rarely let the broker claw that extra cost back from the original operator. So a broker can end up paying twice, once for the cancelled flight and once for the replacement, while the original operator keeps the funds unless the broker sues and actually collects.
Timothy Lomakin’s Personal Exposure
Lomakin is not a background figure in this litigation. He is personally named in several of the suits. In the Austin Business Finance judgment, he and Alissa Lomakin were held jointly and severally liable alongside the corporate entities for the full $450,731.44. In the Genesis Wing case, the complaint asks the court to pierce the corporate veil, arguing that Lomakin is the “alter ego” of Firm Foundation Aviation and that recognizing a separate corporate existence “would sanction fraud and promote injustice.” The MGFG150 case pursues similar theories, alleging inadequate capitalization and commingling of funds.
Lomakin has pushed back in general terms. In a statement reported by Private Jet Card Comparisons, he said: “This is the United States of America. Anybody can sue for anything, whether right or wrong, innocent until proven guilty.”
None of the pending cases has reached trial, and no court has made a finding of fraud against Lomakin or Foundation Aviation on the merits. Those allegations remain unproven. What is on the record is the volume of claims, the consistent facts alleged across unrelated plaintiffs, and the company’s repeated failure to appear and defend, which is how the default judgments piled up.