### VIA EXPRESS MAIL Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Attn: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 Federal AviationAdministration 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: LutherKurtz andSkydive Coastal California d/b/a PhoenixAreaSkydiving 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 ofComplainant's Motion for an Order Granting Summary Judgment and a Director's Determination in Favor ofComplainant and to Strike any Pleadings Served by Respondent AfterMarch 7, 2016 in the captioned matter. One copy is unbound, as requested by the FAA.

enc.
cc: James Thompson, City Manager, City ofCasa Grande, Arizona Luther KurtzBEFORE 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 FORAN ORDERGRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AND A DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATIONINFAVOR OF COMPLAINANT AND TO

STRIKE ANY PLEADINGS SERVED BY RESPONDENT AFTERMARCH 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 ofan Order Granting Summary Judgment and a Director's Determination in Favor ofComplainant and to Strike Any Pleadings Served by Respondent After March 7, 2016 Now comes Luther Kurtz for himselfand as owner ofSkydive Coastal California, d/b/a Phoenix Area Skydiving ("Complainant"), through counsel, and moves the FAA for an Order granting SummaryJudgment and a Director's Determination in Complainant's favor and to strike any pleadings servedby Respondent after March 7, 2016, for the reasons stated below and
1granting the reliefdesired as set out in Complainant's 14 CFR Part 16 Complaint dated and served December 30, 2015. 

### I. Factual Background
OnDecember30,2015, Complainant served its 14 CFR Part 16 Complaint against the City ofCasa Grande, Arizona ("Complaint"), via mail, onthe City Manager ofCasa Grande, Arizona, James Thompson, at his office, 510 E. Florence Blvd, CasaGrande, Arizona, 85122. A copy ofthe Certificate ofService 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 hadbeen docketed (attachment B). With the Notice ofDocketing mailed by the FAAto the City ofCasa 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 ofDocketing, 14 CFRPart 16.17(c), automatically gave the City another five days to
serve its response-makingits response due to be served onMarch 5, 2016. March 

### 5 fell on a Saturday, and 14 CFR Part 16.17(b) provides that ifa time computation for a partyto take some action falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, the time for the action is automatically extendedto the first daythat is not a Saturday, Sunday or holiday-the City was required to serve its response onMonday, March 7, 2016. As ofthe deadline for sending Express Mail onMarch 14, 2016, no response to the Complaint has been receivedby Complainant. 

### IL Law and Argument
At no time (either prior to, or after, the date onwhich the City was required to serve its response) did any representative ofthe City contacted Complainant or counsel for Complainant 

### 2

### to discuss the Complaint, resolution ofthe Complaint or to request an extension oftimeto respond to the Complaint. Ifthe 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 CFRPart 16.19(e) also requires that a party attempt to obtain
concurrence in the extension oftime sought from the other party. At no time has any representative ofthe City contacted Complainant or counsel for Complainant to seek
concurrence in an extension oftime to answer the Complaint. It 

### should be noted that the City has been inpossession ofthe Complaint for an unusually long period oftime for a 14 CFRPart 16 action. The FAA andthe Cityreceived the Complaint
on or about January 2, 2016. Under 14 CFR Part 16.23(c), th.e FAA is to notify the parties whetherthe Complaint has been docketed within 20 days--inthis matter that wouldhave been
on or about January 22, 2016-triggeringthe response deadline for the City. However, the Washington, D.C. area was subjected to one ofthe 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 inissuing the Notice of Docketing-givingthe City an additionall8 days to review and act onthe 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 ofthe sections of 14 CFR Part 16 pertainingto the filing ofresponsive 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 Complainantto seek concurrence in the extension.
In the Complaint, Luther Kurtz provided extensive evidence ofthe utter disregard Respondent, the City ofCasa Grande, had demonstrated for the FAA, FAAregulations and FAA personnel, including the refusal ofthe 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 CFRPart 16 regulations set out absolute deadlines for a response to a complaint, a motionto extend time to respond and a requirement to conferwiththe Complainant andbecause Respondent has absolutely refused to comply with even one ofthe regulations, the allegations ofthe Complaint should be taken as proven, the reliefrequested shouldbe granted and Respondent should not be allowed to respond to the Complaint or object to the relief requested by Complainant under it. 

### ill. ReliefDesired


### Because Complainant again showed its contempt for the FAA by refusing to respond in any fashion under the regulations, deadlines and imperatives of 14 CFRPart 16, Complainant seeks an Order from the FAA automatically striking any pleadings filed or servedby the City of



### 4CasaGrande in this matter on or after March 8, 2016, entering summaryjudgment and a Director's Decision in its favor and requiring:
That the City ofCasa Grande, Arizona, issue within 30 days, approval for Complainant to beginparachute operations onto the CasaGrande Airport immediately, and its immediate approval for Complainantto 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 onthe 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.comCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### I hereby certifythat I have this day served the foregoing Complainant's Motion for an Order Granting Summary Judgment and a Director's Determination inFavor ofComplainant and to Strike any Pleadings Served by Respondent After March 7, 2016 onthe following person at the following address by mail: James Thompson City Manager 510 E. Florence Blvd CasaGrande, Arizona 85122 Datedthis 1411 

### day ofMarch, 2016

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day servedthe foregoing 14 CFRPart 16 Complaint on 

### the following person atthe following address by mail: James Thompson City Manager 510 E. FlorenceBlvd CasaGrande, Arizona 85122 Datedthis 30th day ofDecember, 2015U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration


### NOTICE OF DOCKETING 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591

Please be advisedthat the complaint filed by Luther Kurtz and Skydive Coastal California d/b/aPhoenix Area Skydiving ("complainant") against the City ofCasaGrande, Arizona ("respondent") filed under the Rules ofPractice for Federally Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, Tit!el4;"Jlort 16 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations ("14 CFRPart 16"), has been doc 

## tedby·tlie Fed ral AviationAdministration's Office ofthe ChiefCounsel, as Docket o. 16-16-01 on**'ebru~** 9, 2016. The respondent IS required to ftle an answer to the complaint within 20 days ofthe date of service ofthis notice. See 14 CFR 

### §16.23 (d). The answer shall deny or admitthe allegations made in the complaint, and shall assert any affirmative defense. The answer may include a motionto dismiss the complaint or any portionthereof, 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 motionto dismiss the complaint or a motion for summaryjudgmenton the complaint. Therespondent may move for dismissal ofthe entire complaint or move for dismissal ofspecific issues from adjudication. The motion mustbe filed within 20 days after the date ofservice ofthis notice ofdocketing. See 14 CFR 

### § 16.26. Ifsuch a motion is filed under 14 CFR 

### § 16.26, an answer must be filed within 20 days ofthe date ofservice ofanFAA order denying all or part ofthat motion. See 14 CFR 

### § 16.23 (d). The complainantmay file a reply within 10 days ofthe date ofservice ofthe answer. The respondent may file a rebuttal within 10 days ofthe date ofservice ofthe complainant's reply. See 14 CFR 

### § 16.23(e) and (f). The answer, reply, andrebuttal shall, like the complaint, be accompaniedby supporting documentation upon whichthe parties rely. The answer, reply, andrebuttal shall each contain a concise but complete statement ofthe 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 notbe allowed without showing good cause through a motion and supporting documents. See 14 CFR 

### § 16.23 

## G). All documents filed withthe FAA inthis proceeding shall be served (andinclude a certificate ofservice) by thepersons filing them onall parties to the proceeding, and onthe 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. 

## Uclessotl'ierwise specmed, an executed 

### original and

### three{3}copies ofeach 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 ofPart 16 documents is permittedunder the following guidelines:
• Parties may send e-mails containing theirpleadings as an attachment. The attachment(s) shall be Adobe PDF file(s). The subject line ofthe e-mail must containthe names ofthe complainant andrespondent, as well as the FAA docket number, ifassigned. The size ofthe email may not exceed 10 MB.
• E-mail filings shall be sentto the FAA Docket Clerk at 9-AWA-AGC-Part16@faa.gov and the opposingparty (only ifthe opposing party has agreed with the complainant in writing to participate in electronic filing, otherwise service mustbe made pursuant to 14 CFR 

### §16.15.) The FAA will not provide any acknowledgement orreceiptto parties filing electronically.
• A party filing electronically must providethe FAA Docket Clerk andthe opposing party an e-mail address designating its representative to receive electronic pleadings and documents by e-mail.
• A party availing itselfofelectronic filing as described in this document and 14 CFR 

### § 16.13 (h) waives its rights under Part 16to service by any othermeans from the opposing party or FAA. " A party filing electronically will include with its pleadings a certificate ofservice statingthe method as electronic by or via e-mail. Inregard to computation of time, the date ofthe e-mail is not included inthe computation oftimeunder this part. See 14 CFR 

### § 16.17 (a). Parties will startthe count as ofthe day following the date the e-mail was sent. 1 The DepartmentofTransportation (DOT) uses the government-wide Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov. Accordingly, iffiling paper documents withthe FAA, please ensure that at least one 

### ofthe 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 ofthe ChiefCounsel

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

### §§ 16.13 (a), (b), and (c). Ifa party subsequently decides to "opt-out" ofelectronic 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 ofor in addition to the existing requirements set forth in Part 16.

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February

## _f_, 2016, I causedto beplaced inthe United States Mail (first class mail, postage paid) orpersonally delivered a true copy ofthe 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 AirportProceedings Docket (AGC-600)

S aronLong Airports & Enviromnent Law Division FAA Office ofthe ChiefCounsel