SERVED: DECEMBER 11, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASIDNGTON, DC ., ,. ; ~~ - ,.., : ' 

In the Matter of: ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1325 

BEACH AVIATION, LLC 

Respondent 

Case No. 2013S0950071 

ORDER SETTING DEADLINES FOR 

THE RESPONDENT TO RESPOND AND SHOW CAUSE 

AND THE FAA TO REPLY, AND RESERVING OTHER RELIEF 

On September 3, 2015, an Order Setting a Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, and 

Directing the Parties to Confer and File a Rule 26(f) Proposed Discovery Plan was filed. Among 

other things, this Order set the Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference for December 10, 2015 

at 1:30pm ET, and directed the parties to file a Ru1e 26(f) Report onor before December 3, 2015. 

On September 28,2015, the FAA filed a Motion to Deem Admitted and For Judgment on 

the Pleadings ("Motion"). 

On December 3, 2015, the FAA filed a Joint Proposed Scheduling Plan ("Plan"). The 

Scheduling Plan was signed only by the FAA attorney, but stated "the parties herby submit the 

following proposed scheduling/ discovery plan." (Plan, 1.) 

On December 10, 2015, the FAA appeared by telephone for the Rule 16 Litigation 

Scheduling/Motion Conference. The prose Respondent, Beach Aviation, LLC, failed to appear, 

and there was no explanation for its absence. The FAA asserted it had had engaged in recent 

discussions with Mr. Charles Brady, the Respondent's lay representative, in order to create and 

submit the Plan. As part of these discussions, the FAA had reminded Mr. Brady about the courtordered Conference. 
Brief Discussion 

In its September 28, 2015 Motion, the FAA seeks a default fmding and judgment. The 

FAA asserts in the Motion that its' Complaint, dated July 1, 2015, was "filed" on July 1, 2015. 

(Motion, 1). According to the Complaint's Certificate of Service, the FAA served the 

Respondent by certified mail (return receipt requested) to an address in Boca Raton, Florida. 

(Compl. Cert. Service, 1.) 

The FAA asserts in its September 28, 2015 Motion that the pro se Respondent, Beach 

Aviation, LLC, has failed to file a timely Answer to the FAA's accepted Complaint. As a result, 

the FAA seeks a default finding and judgment. The FAA asserts that each allegation in the 

Complaint (i.e., Sections I, II, and III) should be deemed uncontested and admitted, pursuant to 

14 C.F.R. § 13.209(f). In essence, the FAA alleges that the Respondent violated multiple safety 

regulations regarding its duty to register and implement drug and alcohol testing programs. The 

FAA proposes a civil penalty of$15,400 for the alleged violations in its Complaint. 

In FAA civil penalty proceedings, the FAA's Rules of Practice require that a respondent 

file an answer to a complaint within 30 days of service of the complaint. 14 C.F.R. · § 13.209(a). 

When a complaint is served by mail, the respondent is given an additional five (5) days to 

respond (i.e., a total of35 days). 14 C.F.R. § 13.211(e). If a respondent fails to respond or 

answer a complaint, a default finding or judgment may be entered against the respondent. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(f), however, a responding party who has not filed a 

timely answer to a complaint may avoid a default finding by presenting good cause reasons (if 

any) for the failure to file a timely Answer. A respondent who files a late answer (i.e., an answer 

filed outside or beyond the applicable 30 day or 35 day period) must make a showing of"good 

cause" for the delay in such answer, before it may be considered. 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(f). "A 

showing of good cause is mandatory. Without it failure to file an answer by the deadline may not 

be excused."' Global Peace Initiative, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-8 at 6 (Aug. 21, 2008) (quoting 

Atlantic World Airways, FAA Order No. 1995-28 at 4 (Dec. 19, 1995)). 

Page 2 of4 
Good Cause Standard 

Good cause is a "nebulous" standard. 21A Fed. Proc. L.Ed. §51:64 (2014). It is an 

evaluation that rests within the discretion of the trial court, since there is a preference for 

deciding cases on their merits. 1 OA Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed Prac. & 

Proc. Civ. §2693 (3d ed. 2014); See, e.g., In re David Lloyd Cornwall, FAA Order No. 92-47 at 

7 (July 22, 1992) (Wherever possible, cases should be heard "on the merits"). 

In evaluating good cause, there is "no fixed, rigid standard" that can anticipate "all the 

situations" which might arise for a party's failure to file a timely answer. 21A Karl Oakes, Fed. 

Proc. L. Ed. §51 :64 (2014). Therefore, in determining whether good cause exists or does not 

exist, the court may consider many factors, including (but not limited to) the nature of the 

default, whether there is a meritorious defense, whether the opposing party will be prejudiced, 

the timeliness of the request for relief, the amount involved in the litigation, as well as the 

availability and effectiveness of less drastic solutions. 29 A.L.R. Fed. 7, Good Cause General 

Considerations, §4 (1976); See, e.g., In re James Jauquin Jordan, FAA-2015-0205 (May 15, 

2015)(0rder Finding Good Cause, Accepting Answer, and Granting/Denying Other Relief). 

Other considerations in evaluating good cause (not inclusive) may include the inaction of a 

party's counsel, a party's mistaken belief about the time requirements, the willfulness of the 

party's non-compliance, any factors demonstrating excusable neglect, surprise, or inadvertence, 

or a party's erroneous reliance on settlement negotiations. 29 A.L.R. Fed. 7, Sufficiency of 

Particular Reasons for Inaction,§§ A and B (1976), See also, Edes v. Fredson, 344 F. Supp. 2d 

209 (D. Me. 2004). 

Conclusion 

In the case herein, the Respondent should be given an opportunity to respond to the 

FAA's September 28, 2015 Motion, and to state what reasons (if any) there are for its failure to 

file a timely Answer to the FAA's Complaint. As part of this Response, the Respondent should 

also file an Answer to the Complaint. 

Having reviewed the case file, all relevant caselaw, statutes, regulations, rules, and 

authority, and being fully advised: 

Page 3 of4 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. On or before January 12,2016, the prose Respondent, Beach Aviation, LLC, Inc, may 

file a written Response to the FAA's September 28, 2015 Motion. In this Response, the 

Respondent should specifically state the facts or reasons (if any) why it did not file a 

timely Answer to the FAA's July 1, 2015 Complaint. 

2. On or before January 12,2016, the Respondent may file a written Answer to the 

FAA's July 1, 2015 Complaint. This Answer should specifically respond to each 

allegation in the Complaint (i.e., Section I; Section II,~~ 1-8, and Section Ill,~~ 9-13), as 

well as specifically identify each affirmative defense (if any) the Respondent intends to 

assert at the h~aring. 

3. If the Respondent fails to file, on or before January 12,2016, a written Response to the 

FAA's Motion, and fails to file a written Answer to the Complaint, it may be deemed to 

be in default, and the FAA's Motion may be granted, in full or in part, without further 

notice to the parties, and without further conference or hearing. 

4. On or before January 29,2016, the FAA may file a Reply to any of the Respondent's 

written submissions. 

5. The FAA's September 28, 2015 Motion is reserved until after January 29, 2016. 

6. The parties' December 3, 2015 Plan is reserved, and the Rule 16 Conference postponed 

until after a decision is issued on the FAA's September 28, 2015 Motion. 

7. Any questions regarding the procedures contained in this Order should be directed to Mr. 

Cody Smith, Attorney-Advisor at the Office of Hearings (202-366-6941). 

Attachment: Service List 

Page 4 of4 
Docket No. FAA-2015-1325 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC--430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Mr. Brandon C. Goldberg 

Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration, Southern Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 . 

FPCX: 404-305-5223 

Mr. Charles Brady 

Beach Aviation, LLC 

Respondent 

3700 Airport Road, Suite 405 

Boca Raton, FL 33431 

TEL: 954-600-0260 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of :Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 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.