u.s. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO_?~ _ ..

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 4"\CC--__ 11:::1 

WASHINGTON, D.C. ~ 

IN THE MATTER OF 

EMPIRE FLIGHT ACADEMY 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0290 

JUN 2;] 

ftEARING -

Chief Administrative Law Judge Ronnie A. Yoder 

AGENCY'S REOUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR DECISION 

COMES NOW the Agency, by and through its designated representative, the Regional 

Counsel for the Eastern Region and his duly designated agents, and moves for an II-day 

extension to respond to Respondent's Motion for Decision (hereinafter "the Motion for 

Decision"). In support of this request, the Agency submits as follows: 

(1) The Motion for Decision was served on June 3, 2011 and thus, under 14 CFR Section 

13.218(d), the Agency had 10 days to file an answer, or until June 13,2011. 

(2) Counsel for the Agency, however, overlooked receipt ofthe Motion for Decision, 

confusing it with the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that had been filed by 

Respondent in the same case just three days before, on May 31, 2011. That this was an 

oversight is evidenced by the fact that the Agency requested an extension of time to 

respond to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on June 6, 2011, but made no 

mention of the Motion for Decision. Had Agency counsel been aware of the additional 
motion, he could have easily included a request for an extension oftime to respond in the 

same motion. 

(3) Had Agency counsel been aware of the Motion for Decision at the time it was served, 

he would have required an extension of time for the same reasons set forth in the request 

for an extension of time to respond to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, 

specifically the fact that Agency counsel was on leave for most of the week of June 6-10, 

and the unavailability during the relevant time frame of Louis Misiano, with who Agency 

counsel need to confer. 

(4) Since the Agency has been granted an extension until June 24, 2011 to respond to the 

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, it is only fair that it be granted an extension to the 

same date to respond to the Motion for Decision. 

(5) Agency counsel first became aware of the existence of the second motion late on 

June 14, 2011, and immediately sent an email on the same date to Respondent's counsel 

inquiring as to whether he would object to the extension, but has received no response 

(6)Given the procedural schedule that has been adopted in this case, the II-day 

extension would not prejudice Respondent. 

WHEREFORE, the Agency requests that it be granted an II-day extension, to June 24, 

2 
2011, to file an answer to the Motion for Decision. 

Respectfully submitted, 

ALFRED R. JOHNSON, JR. 

REGIONAL COUNSEL 

By: Zacha ~~ . Berman 

Attorney 

Date: June 15, 2011 

3 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that I have this date sent via facsimile and first class mail a copy of the 

foregoing AGENCY'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR DECISION to: 

Gregory S. Winton, Esq. 

One Research Court, Suite 450 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Telefax: (301)294-2525 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room E12-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Telefax: (202)366-7536 

I hereby certify that I have this date sent via first class mail a copy of the foregoing 

AGENCY'S REOUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR DECISION to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Att. Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WlOOOO 

Date: June 15,2011 

~e..MAAV Marianna Perero 

Paralegal Specialist 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

4