VIA EXPRESS MAIL 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attn: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk 

AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Richard]. Dmden 

Attorney at Law 

27987 Richmond Hill Road 

Conifer, Colorado 80433 

616/901-6516 

March 14,2016 

RECEIVED 

MAR 16 2016 

PART 16 DOCKETS 

Re: Luther Kurtz and Skydive Coastal California d/b/a Phoenix Area Skydiving vs. The 

City of casa Grande, Arizona 

DocketNo. 16-16-01 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Enclosed for filing please find an original and three copies of Complainant's Motion for 

an Order Granting Summary Judgment and a Director's Determination in Favor of Complainant 

and to Strike any Pleadings Served by Respondent After March 7, 2016 in the captioned matter. 

One copy is unbound, as requested by the FAA. 

enc. 

cc: James Thompson, City Manager, City of Casa Grande, Arizona 

Luther Kurtz 
BEFORE THE 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

LUTHER KURTZ and 

SKYDIVE COASTAL CALIFORNIA 

d/b/a PHOENIX AREA SKYDIVING 

Complainant, 

vs. 

THE CITY OF CASA GRANDE, ARIZONA 

Respondent 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) DocketNo.: 16-16-01 

) 

) 

) 

) _______________________________ ) 

COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

AND A DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION IN FAVOR OF COMPLAINANT AND TO 

STRIKE ANY PLEADINGS SERVED BY RESPONDENT AFTER MARCH 7, 2016 

Please Serve: 

Richard J. Durden 

Richard J. Durden, Attorney at Law 

27987 Richmond Hill Rd. 

Conifer, Co. 80433 

T: 616/901-6516 

avlawver!iijyahoo.com 

Counsel for Complainant 

Complainant's Motion for Entry of an Order Granting Summary Judgment and a 

Director's Determination in Favor of Complainant and to Strike Any Pleadings Served by 

Respondent After March 7, 2016 

Now comes Luther Kurtz for himself and as owner of Skydive Coastal California, d/b/a 

Phoenix Area Skydiving ("Complainant"), through counsel, and moves the FAA for an Order 

granting Summary Judgment and a Director's Determination in Complainant's favor and to 

strike any pleadings served by Respondent after March 7, 2016, for the reasons stated below and 

1 
granting the relief desired as set out in Complainant's 14 CFR Part 16 Complaint dated and 

served December 30, 2015. 

I. Factual Background 

On December 30,2015, Complainant served its 14 CFR Part 16 Complaint against the 

City of Casa Grande, Arizona ("Complaint"), via mail, on the City Manager of Casa Grande, 

Arizona, James Thompson, at his office, 510 E. Florence Blvd, CasaGrande, Arizona, 85122. A 

copy of the Certificate of Service is attached as attachment A 

Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16.23(c), on February 9, 2016, the FAA notified the City of 

CasaGrande, via the City Manager, that the Complaint had been docketed (attachment B). With 

the Notice of Docketing mailed by the FAA to the City of Casa Grande, the FAA reminded the 

City that it was required to file its answer to the Complaint within 20 days, as set out in 14 CFR 

Part 16.23(d)-makingthe City's response due on February 29,2016. Because the FAA mailed 

the Notice of Docketing, 14 CFR Part 16.17(c), automatically gave the City another five days to 

serve its response-making its response due to be served on March 5, 2016. March 5 fell on a 

Saturday, and 14 CFR Part 16.17(b) provides that if a time computation for a party to take some 

action falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, the time for the action is automatically extended to 

the first day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or holiday-the City was required to serve its 

response on Monday, March 7, 2016. As of the deadline for sending Express Mail on March 14, 

2016, no response to the Complaint has been received by Complainant. 

IL Law and Argument 

At no time (either prior to, or after, the date on which the City was required to serve its 

response) did any representative of the City contacted Complainant or counsel for Complainant 

2 
to discuss the Complaint, resolution of the Complaint or to request an extension oftime to 

respond to the Complaint. If the City wished to seek additional time to respond to the 

Complaint, it was required to do so, in writing, three business days before the response was due 

(14 CFR Part 16.19(e)). 14 CFR Part 16.19(e) also requires that a party attempt to obtain 

concurrence in the extension of time sought from the other party. At no time has any 

representative of the City contacted Complainant or counsel for Complainant to seek 

concurrence in an extension of time to answer the Complaint. 

It should be noted that the City has been in possession of the Complaint for an unusually 

long period of time for a 14 CFR Part 16 action. The FAA and the City received the Complaint 

on or about January 2, 2016. Under 14 CFR Part 16.23(c), th.e FAA is to notify the parties 

whether the Complaint has been docketed within 20 days--in this matter that would have been 

on or about January 22, 2016-triggering the response deadline for the City. However, the 

Washington, D.C. area was subjected to one of the worst winter storms in its history in January, 

after the FAA had received the Complaint. The storm disrupted all business in Washington, 

D.C. for some time. Accordingly, the FAA was some 18 days late in issuing the Notice of 

Docketing-giving the City an additionall8 days to review and act on the Complaint. The City 

cannot be heard to argue that it did not have enough time to respond, especially when it simply 

took no action. 

The language of the sections of 14 CFR Part 16 pertaining to the filing of responsive 

pleadings and deadlines use the words "required" and "shall." Filing a response to a Complaint 

is not an option for a Respondent-the deadline is not merely a guideline. The requirements and 

deadlines are absolutes and may be only extended by a motion made to the FAA three days prior 

3 
to the deadline for serving a response and only after contacting Complainant to seek concurrence 

in the extension. 

In the Complaint, Luther Kurtz provided extensive evidence of the utter disregard 

Respondent, the City of Casa Grande, had demonstrated for the FAA, FAA regulations and FAA 

personnel, including the refusal of the airport manager to even sign a document acknowledging 

his participation in an FAA safety inspection at the Casa Grande Airport. The evidence showed 

that Casa Grande was willing to accept FAA AIP funds, but completely unwilling to live up to 

the obligations it agreed to when contracting for those funds~including complying with FAA 

directives regarding grant assurances and cooperating with FAA personnel on airport issues. 

The City is consistent~it has now ignored another FAA demand, this time the FAA's 

February 9, 2016 demand and requirement that it respond to the Complaint by March 7, 2016. 

Accordingly, because 14 CFR Part 16 regulations set out absolute deadlines for a response to a 

complaint, a motion to extend time to respond and a requirement to confer with the Complainant 

and because Respondent has absolutely refused to comply with even one of the regulations, the 

allegations of the Complaint should be taken as proven, the relief requested should be granted 

and Respondent should not be allowed to respond to the Complaint or object to the relief 

requested by Complainant under it. 

ill. Relief Desired 

Because Complainant again showed its contempt for the FAA by refusing to respond in 

any fashion under the regulations, deadlines and imperatives of 14 CFR Part 16, Complainant 

seeks an Order from the FAA automatically striking any pleadings filed or served by the City of 

4 
CasaGrande in this matter on or after March 8, 2016, entering summary judgment and a 

Director's Decision in its favor and requiring: 

That the City of Casa Grande, Arizona, issue within 30 days, approval for Complainant to 

begin parachute operations onto the CasaGrande Airport immediately, and its immediate 

approval for Complainant to lease appropriate office and classroom space convenient for ramp 

access on the Airport, or install a modular structure for office and classroom space on a site 

convenient for ramp access on the Airport and withholding all federal AlP funding until the City 

comes into compliance. 

Dated: March 14,2016 

5 

Respectfully submitted, 

Richard J. Durden, Attorney at Law 

Attorney for Complainant 

By: 

. Durden 

2 98 Richmond Hill Road 

Conifer, Colorado 80433 

(616) 901-65156 

avlawyer@yahoo.com 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Complainant's Motion for an 

Order Granting Summary Judgment and a Director's Determination in Favor of Complainant and 

to Strike any Pleadings Served by Respondent After March 7, 2016 on the following person at 

the following address by mail: 

James Thompson 

City Manager 

510 E. Florence Blvd 

CasaGrande, Arizona 85122 

Dated this 1411 day of March, 2016 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing 14 CFR Part 16 Complaint on 

the following person at the following address by mail: 

James Thompson 

City Manager 

510 E. Florence Blvd 

CasaGrande, Arizona 85122 

Dated this 30th day of December, 2015 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

NOTICE OF DOCKETING 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Please be advised that the complaint filed by Luther Kurtz and Skydive Coastal California 

d/b/a Phoenix Area Skydiving ("complainant") against the City of CasaGrande, Arizona 

("respondent") filed under the Rules of Practice for Federally Assisted Airport Enforcement 

Proceedings, Tit!el4;"Jlort 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations ("14 CFRPart 16"), has 

been doc ted by ·tlie Fed ral Aviation Administration's Office of the Chief Counsel, as 

Docket o. 16-16-01 on 'ebru~ 9, 2016. 

The respondent IS required to ftle an answer to the complaint within 20 days of the date of 

service of this notice. See 14 CFR § 16.23 (d). The answer shall deny or admit the allegations 

made in the complaint, and shall assert any affirmative defense. The answer may include a 

motion to dismiss the complaint or any portion thereof, with a supporting memorandum of 

points and authorities. See 14 CFR § 16.23 (h) and G). 

Pursuant to the procedures set forth in 14 CFR § 16.26, the respondent may file a motion to 

dismiss the complaint or a motion for summary judgment on the complaint. The respondent 

may move for dismissal of the entire complaint or move for dismissal of specific issues from 

adjudication. The motion must be filed within 20 days after the date of service of this notice 

of docketing. See 14 CFR § 16.26. If such a motion is filed under 14 CFR § 16.26, an 

answer must be filed within 20 days of the date of service of an FAA order denying all or 

part of that motion. See 14 CFR § 16.23 (d). 

The complainant may file a reply within 10 days of the date of service of the answer. The 

respondent may file a rebuttal within 10 days of the date of service of the complainant's 

reply. See 14 CFR § 16.23(e) and (f). The answer, reply, and rebuttal shall, like the 

complaint, be accompanied by supporting documentation upon which the parties rely. The 

answer, reply, and rebuttal shall each contain a concise but complete statement of the facts 

relied upon to substantiate the answers, admissions, denials, or averments made. See 14 CFR 

§ 16.23 (g) and (i). Amendments or supplements to the pleadings will not be allowed 

without showing good cause through a motion and supporting documents. See 14 CFR § 

16.23 G). 

All documents filed with the FAA in this proceeding shall be served (and include a certificate 

of service) by the persons filing them on all parties to the proceeding, and on the FAA at the 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedin~ Docket, AGC-6QO, Federal Aviation A<!lmmstrafi~O 

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, 20591. See 14 CFR §§ 16.13 and 16.15. 

Ucless otl'ierwise specmed, an executed original and three{3} copies of each and every 

document shall be filed with the FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket. See 14 CFR § 

16.13(c). 
Pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.13(f), electronic filing of Part 16 documents is permitted under the 

following guidelines: 

• Parties may send e-mails containing their pleadings as an attachment. The 

attachment(s) shall be Adobe PDF file(s). The subject line of the e-mail must 

contain the names of the complainant and respondent, as well as the FAA docket 

number, if assigned. The size of the email may not exceed 10 MB. 

• E-mail filings shall be sent to the FAA Docket Clerk at 9-AWA-AGC-Part16@faa.gov and the opposing party (only ifthe opposing party has agreed with 

the complainant in writing to participate in electronic filing, otherwise service 

must be made pursuant to 14 CFR §16.15.) The FAA will not provide any 

acknowledgement or receipt to parties filing electronically. 

• A party filing electronically must provide the FAA Docket Clerk and the 

opposing party an e-mail address designating its representative to receive 

electronic pleadings and documents by e-mail. 

• A party availing itself of electronic filing as described in this document and 14 

CFR § 16.13 (h) waives its rights under Part 16 to service by any other means 

from the opposing party or FAA. 

" A party filing electronically will include with its pleadings a certificate of service 

stating the method as electronic by or via e-mail. In regard to computation of 

time, the date of the e-mail is not included in the computation oftime under this 

part. See 14 CFR § 16.17 (a). Parties will start the count as ofthe day following 

the date the e-mail was sent.1 

The Department of Transportation (DOT) uses the government-wide Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov. Accordingly, if filing paper 

documents with the FAA, please ensure that at least one of the required copies is 

unbound a~houf_tabs. Exhibit numbersin~!mTies::sJiJiii~Jl:fuiiioted on the 

first page of each exhibit or in divider pages. The FAA will forward all electroriTc __ _ 

submissions (like the paper submissions) to FDMS for public viewing. 

Je ie Dt e o 

Attorney, Airports Law Branch 

FAA Office of the Chief Counsel 

1 Please note, this paragraph only exempts the parties from the filing requirements under 14 CFR §§ 

16.13 (a), (b), and (c). If a party subsequently decides to "opt-out" of electronic filing, it must notify 

the FAA Docket Clerk and opposing party in writing. See 14 CFR § 16.13 (h)(4). The electronic 

filing method may be used in lieu of or in addition to the existing requirements set forth in Part 16. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February _f_, 2016, I caused to be placed in the United 

States Mail (first class mail, postage paid) or personally delivered a true copy of the 

foregoing NOTICE OF DOCKETING addressed to: 

Richard J. Durden, Esq. 

27987 Richmond Hill Road 

Conifer, CO 80433 

Counsel for Complainant 

James Thompson 

City Manager 

510 E. Florence Blvd 

CasaGrande, AZ 85122 

Respondent 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket (AGC-600) 

S aronLong 

Airports & Enviromnent Law Division 

FAA Office of the Chief Counsel