" 

SERVED: April 22, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In The Matter Of: ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2016-4261 

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE CO. 

Respondent 

Case No. 2013S0700189 

ORDER DEEMING THE FAA'S RESPONSE TO THE RESPONDENT'S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION UNTIMELY AND MOOT 

AND RESERVING OTHER RELIEF 

On March 28, 2016, the Respondent, United Parcel Service Co., filed a Motion for 

Extension of Time ("Motion"), pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.213(b). 

On AprilS, 2016, an Order Granting the Respondent's Motion for Extension of Time and 

Directing/Reserving Other Relief ("Order") was filed. 

Three days later, on April 8, 2016, the FAA filed the Complainant's Response to 

Respondent's Motion for Extension of Time ("Response"). 

A. Brief Discussion 

The FAA's AprilS, 2016 Response does not move for any relief from the AprilS, 2016 

Order. Rather, the FAA does not reference or discuss the April S, 2016 Order at all, even though 

a courtesy copy of the Orderwas faxed to both the FAA and the Respondent on April 5, 2016, 

the dayit was issued. (Order, Cert. of Service.) 

The Respondent's March 28,2016 Motion was brought pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 

13.213(b), which allows either party an opportunity to request an extension of time from the 

court "not later than 7 days before the document is due." 14 C.F.R. § 13.213(b ). If a request for 

extension is filed within 7 days of a deadline, the movant must provide good cause for the 

extension request. ld. 
.. A motion brought under 14 C.F.R. § 13.213(b) does not require the court to wait for a 

response from the opposing party prior to ruling on the motion. Indeed, it is presupposed th~t the 

movant has either obtain an agreement for the requested extension of time from the opposing 

side under 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(a), failed to obtain such an agreement, or that the movant has 

already utilized its opportunity for one (1) agreed extension.14 C.F.R. § 13.218(a). 

Given the shortness of time allowed for making the motion, it is clear that the intent of 14 

C.F.R. § 13.213(b) is for the court to rule on a requested extension expeditiously, based solely on 

the movant's request. 1 The rule does not prohibit the opposing side from filing an optional 

response to a motion for extension, but such response may be considered only if filed prior to the 

court ruling. It should also be noted that the Rules of Practice do not mandate any specific limit 

on an .extension period, either when the parties agree to an extension of time, or when the court 

rules on a motion for extension of time. 14 C.F.R. § 13.213(a) and (b). 

In the instant case, the record shows that the Complaint was served by U.S. Mail on 

March 3, 2016. (Compl., Cert. of Service.) Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.209, 13.211, and 13.212, 

the Respondent's answer would have been due on or before April 7, 2016. On March 28, 2016, 

nine (9) days prior to its April 7, 2016 deadline for the answer, the Respondent filed its' Motion 

for relief. The Respondent's Motion was timely filed pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.213(b). 

The record further reflects tha~ the Court issued the Order granting the Respondent's 

Motion on April 5, 2016 (i.e., two (2) days before the April 7, 2016 deadline for the 

Respondent's. answer). The Order was based solely on the Respondent's materials, since the . . 

FAA had not filed any optional Response. In this April 5, 2016 Order, the Court granted the 

Respondent's request for an extension,2 based on the Respondent's assertions of. party 

agreement, and because the extension appeared to serve the interests of the parties as well as 

judicial economy. (Order, 1-2.) 

1 For example, an answering party responding to motions brought pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.218 is specifically 

allowed fifteen (15) days for filing a response. 14 C.F.R. § 13.211(e) and 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(d). This time frame 

must be deemed inapplicable under 14 C.F.R. § 13.213(b), since a movant may bring a motion for extension seven 

(7) days or less from a deadline, and is entitled to receive an automatic grant of extension if the court fails to rule on 

the motion before the expiration of the deadline. 

2 Had the Court failed to rule on the Respondent's Motion on or before April 7, 2016, the rule provides an automatic 

twenty (20) day extension from the April?, 2016 deadline. 14 C.F.R. § l3.213(c). 

Page 2 of4 
Thereafter, on April8, 2016 (i.e., three (3) days after the Court ruled on the Motion, and 

one (1) day after the original April 7, 2016 deadline), the FAA filed its Response. This Response 

to the Respondent's March 28, 2016 Motion for an extension oftime was untimely. It is moot 

because the Court has already ruled upon the Motion, as required by 14 C.F.R. § 13.213(b). 

It should also be noted that the content of the FAA's titled Response included various 

requests on topics not referenced in its title, and not identified in the in the document itself. This 

included requests regarding venue, consolidation, and to "correct the caption" on the Complaint. 

(Resp. 2-4.) 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(b), both the form and content of any motion must state 

the request(s) for relief. It is well-established in federal litigation practice that the form of a 

motion includes providing a short title caption, accurately describing or identifying the requests 

for relief. 3 Thereafter, the content of a motion should provide clearly identified plain and 

particular statement(s) of the titled request(s), with grounds supporting each request. 4 See, Fed. 

R. Civ. Proc. 7(b). 

This particularity requirement ensures that the court and the adversary receive ample 

notice of both the relief sought and the.moving party's reasoning, so that the court fully 

understands the motion and the adversary has a meaningful opportunity to 

respond .... Requests for relief made in a passing comment, a stray sentence to a brief, or a 

footnote are likely to fail this particularity test...[ari'd] may be dismissed or denied. 

Steven Baicker-McKee, et al., Federal Civil Rules Handbook, 349-350 (West Publishing 2016). 

To ensure proper consideration ofthe other matters contained in the FAA's Response, 

such matters should.be reserved and addressed by separate Order. 

B. Conclusion 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 13.205(a)(6), and after reviewing all relevant caselaw, regulations, 

statutory authority, and being fully advised; 

3 The rules governing styling of captions and the form of pleadings also apply to motions. Rule 7(b); Steven 

Baicker-McKee, et al., Federal Civil Rules Handbook, 348 (West Publishing 2016). 

4 In some rare instances, a party may tile substantive content under an improper document caption title. The Court 

may, at its discretion, sua sponte assign the proper caption title to the document. However, in this case, the Court 

cannot re-caption or consider the FAA's Response as an Inferred Motion for Reconsideration, since the FAA did not 

acknowledge receipt of the Apri15, 2016 Order or provide grounds why such Order should be reconsidered on a 

potential error of law or fact. 

Page 3 of4 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The FAA's Response to the Respondent's Motion.for Extension of Time is untimely and 

deemed moot. 

2. The FAA's other requests for relief, not captioned or clearly identified in its Response, 

are reserved, and will be addressed by separate Order. 

Attachment:· Service List 

Page 4 of4 
Docket No. FAA-2016-4261 

(Civil Penalty Action) . 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 0005 

Mr. James H. Dunfee Jr. 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Enforcement Division, Southern Team 

1701 Columbia Ave 

College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404~305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Mr. Paul Alp 

Respondent's Counsel 

Crowell & Moring LLP 

1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20004 

TEL: 202-624-2500 

FAX: 202-628-5116 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue; S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

ONE COPY 

Mr. Winston E. Miller 

Respondent's Counsel 

Frost, Brown, Todd, LLC 

400 Market Street, 32"d Floor 

Louisville, KY 40202-3363 

TEL: 502-589-0296 

FAX: 502-581-1087 

Ms. Meaghan G. Byrd 

Respondent's Counsel 

Alston & Byrd LLP 

One Atlantic Center 

1201 W. Peachtree Street 

Atlanta, GA 30309-3424 

TEL: 404-881-7245 

FAX: 404-253-8510 

5 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.