UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D.C . Venic e Je t

Center , LLC , ) ) Complainant , ) C 5 ) FA A Docke t

No . 16-09-0 5 o ) ) ~Q Cit y o f Venice , Florida , ) ) Respondent . ) ) NOTIC E O FEXTENSIO N O FTIM E O n Jul y 6 , 2009 , Venic e Je t Center , LLC , ("VJC" ) filed aComplain t i n th e above

captione dmatter . O n Jul y 10 , 2009 , th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA ) dockete dth e instan t

complain t

an dissue daNotic e requestin g tha t an Answe r

b e filed withi n twenty (20 ) day s o r o n Augus t

3 , 2009 . O n Jul y 23 , 2009 , Counse l for Responden t City o f Venice , Florida , ("Venice") , submitte daMotio n for Extensio n o f

Tim e t o Fil e Answe r for Sixty (60 ) days . Responden t contend s tha t

it s initia l revie w o f

th e complain t an dit s exhibit s whic htota l 24 0 page s requir e asignifican t amoun t o f tim e t o analyz e an d answe r an dtha t counse l was recentl y retaine di n thi s matter . O n Jul y 27 , 2009 , Complainan t VJ C submitte dit s oppositio n t o areques t t o th e City' s request . However , Complainan t state s tha t

i t doe s no t oppos e a30-da y extension . Complainant' s oppositio n t o 6 0 day s was basedo n it s contentio n that , i f granted . Respondent' s Motio n woul dsignificantl y prejudic e th e VJ C (an dothe r non-parties ) whic hi s currentl y i n federal receivershi p an dtha t Responden t

di dno t establis hadequat e ground(s ) fo

r th e extension . Th e Motio n fiirther provide s tha t

Responden t

was serve da courtes y cop y o f

th e Complain t

i n earl y Jul y 200 9 an dha s therefor e bee n awar e abou t th e allegation s containe di n th e Complaint . FA A typicall y seek s concurrenc e fro mbot hside s whe n a n extensio n reques t

for submissio n o f

pleading s i s unde r

consideration . However , th e partie s ar e not i n agreemen t

here . Althoug hPart

1 6 i s intende dt o expedit e substantiall y th e handlin g an d dispositio n o f

airport-relate dcomplaints , th e regulatio n provide s tha t an extensio n o f

tim e may b e grante dwher e necessary o r appropriat e fo r

afair an dcomplet e hearing o f th e matter s before th e Agency .Th e Agenc y hereb y grant s a30-day extension , rathe r than a60-day extension , for th e followin g reasons : In consideratio n o f

th e pleading s an dth e Complaint , whil e thi s Part 1 6 cas e present s som e issue s whic har e mor e complicate dtha n th e typical Part 1 6 case , th e VJ C i s i n federal receivershi p i n SE C v . Arthu r Nada l et al . Cas e No . 8:09-cv-87-T-26TB M )(M.D . Fla.) . A 60-da y extensio n coul darguabl y prejudic e th e VJ C (an dnon-parties ) i n it s proceedin g t o obtai n fiind s o n behal f o f VJ C an dnon-partie s wh o wer e defraude dou t o f hundred s o f

million s o f

dollar s b y VJC' s previou s owner . Th e Agenc y als o finds tha t a60-day extensio n i s no t warrante dsinc e Responden t appear s t o hav e bee n awar e o f

th e allegation s containe di n th e Complain t for aconsiderabl e amoun t o f time . In it s Opposition, Complainan t contend s tha t

Responden t

i s fully awar e o f th e issue s raise di n th e complain t an dwas put

o n notic e abou t

th e allegation s i n th e complain t a s Complainant' s counse l provide dacourtes y cop y o f th e complain t

o n o r abou t Jul y 1 , 2009 . Th e complain t was filedo n Jul y 10,2009 . It i s als o clear

tha t Counse l fo

r th e Responden t

ha s bee n familia

r withth e disput e betwee n th e partie s sinc e Decembe r

23 , 200 8 whe n it

provide dav^ritten lega l opinio n t o th e City o f Venice . Finally , Counse l for

th e Complainan t

agree s t o a30-day extension . Base do n al l o f

th e above reasons , th e Agenc y grant s a30-da y extensio n o f tim e t o Responden t

t o file a n Answer . Pleas e contac t

m e a t (202 ) 267-321 1 withan y additiona l question s o r concerns . ElizabethhU&et

Q C J ^ T Senio r Attorne y Airport s & Environmenta l La w Divisio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Elizabeth.Head@faa.go vCERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E

I HEREB Y CERTIF Y that o n Augus t

3,2009, 1 cause dt o b e place di n th e Unite dState s mai l (firs t class , postag e paid ) an ddelivere datru e cop y o f th e foregoin g documen t addres s to : Gianluc aMorello , Es q Dominiqu e Pearlman , Esq . Counse l for

Complainan t Fowle r Whit e Bogg s P A 50 1 E . Kenned y Blvd . Suit e 170 0 Tamp aF L3360 2 (vi atelecope r

no . 813-229-8313 ) Robert C . Anderson , Esq . Cit y Attorne y Hal l & Anderson , P.A . 131 4 Eas t Venic e Avenue , Suit e E Venice , Florid a3428 5 Thoma s R . Devine , Esq . Counse l for

Responden t Kaplan Kirsc h& Rockwell , LL P 100 1 Connecticu t

Ave. , N W Suit e 80 0 Washington , D.C . 2003 6 (vi atelecopie r

no . 20 2 955-561 6 Pete r J . Kirsch , Esq . Kapla n Kirsc h& Rockwel l LL P 167 5 Broadway , Suit e 230 0 Denver , Colorad o 8020 2 Arthu r P . Ber g Kaplan Kirsc h& Rockwel l LL P 64 1 Lexingto n Avenue , Suit e 140 9 Ne w York , New Yor

k 1002 2 ACO-lO O FA A Part 1 6 Airport

Proceeding s Docke t

(AGC-610 ) 

# 4 ^ 

# . Snaric e Jefi e 

# sz> n