Cromer's Oakland facility

A forklift dealer in California has obtained a judgment of USD91,570.59 against Rigger Xtreme Inc and owner Michael Salter for failing to deliver on an order for a machine to lift space satellites.

Cromer Equipment, under its legal identity East Bay Clarklift Inc of Oakland, California, filed the fraud-and-deceit action in September after making an USD84,000 deposit in January 2008 on behalf of a major defense and aerospace customer and not getting what was promised.

Justice Peter B Hockin heard the case in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in London on 10 February, and the order was entered on 11 February.

The order requires Rigger Xtreme of Cambridge, Ontario, Canada and Salter to pay USD88,490.40, pre-judgment interest of USD3,080.19 from 21 January 2008 and an additional USD3,511.67 for the plaintiff's costs.

"This order bears interest at the rate of 4% per annum from February 10, 2009," Judge Hockin directs.

"The lawsuit was filed after countless lies from Michael Salter that he would produce a machine and also give us our deposit back," says Marshall Cromer, owner of Cromer Equipment. "Included in the lawsuit is a personal judgment against Michael Salter himself that will carry on wherever he goes. It was proven that it was Michael Salter that defrauded us from the very beginning."

Salter "has been taking deposits and not building forklifts," Cromer reports. "I do not want to see other forklift companies get caught with the scam that Michael Salter is pulling on other forklift dealers and customers." Typically, machinery movers need the type of forklift that Salter was promising.

In business for 20 years, Cromer Equipment operates full-service facilities in Oakland and Santa Rosa, California, has an extensive rental fleet, and distributes Caterpillar, Clark, Doosan, Kalmar, Combilift and Donkey brand forklifts and specialty rack and shelving products.

Shawn Laurie Graham of the London law firm of Siskinds LLP represented Cromer in the court case. Salter opted to go without legal representation, did not respond to the court complaint and allowed the matter to go to the judgment.

Multiple attempts to reach Salter were unsuccessful.