04/19/2012 08:38 FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMS 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

-··· ,, ___________ _ TN THE MATTER OF 

PATHFINDER AVIATION, INC 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BF ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0028 

@001/003 

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO MOTION TO DEEM 

ALLEGATIONS ADMITTED 

On March .30, 2012, Complainant served its Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted. This ~ 

motion is based on the fact Respondent had not·answered the·complaint, which, at thatpoint was 

overdue by ten days. By letter dated April 3, 2012, and p6st-tnarked the· following day, 

Respondent answered the complaint.1 It also included a paragraph essentially blaming the · 

untimeliness of its answer on the failure of the Judge's attorney-advisor to return phone calls. 

The facts and circumstances presented by Respondent do not establish good cause for the 

untimely answer. First, Respondent does not indicate when it began its efforts to reach Mr. 

Liebowitz. Further, it does not idei1tify any other efforts it undertook to obtain the information it 

felt it needed in order to submit an answer.when the messages for Mr. Liebowitz were not 

promptly returned. Respondent ccu~d have consulted private counsel, att~mpted to contact 

others in the Office of Hearings, or could have contacted Complainant either for information or 

1 Whal ComplainanT recojved appears to be the original. There is no certificate of service or other indication that 

copies were served on the Hearing Docket or law judge. 
04/19/2012 08:38 FAX 2024935142 FAA -io OMS 141002/003 

an agreement for an extension of time. In the first paragraph ofthe Proce~ural Order, the law 

judge points out that absent an agreement ofthe parties, v.Titten requests for an extension must 

be filed seven days before a due date, absent good cause. Hence, Respondent was on notice not 

onlyofthe requirement for an answer and the consequences ofnot timely submitting one, bt1t 

that waiting until the last moment would be done at its peril, and that Complainant could agree to 

an extension. 

In short, the information provided by Respondent falls woefully short of establishing the sort 

of diligence and good-Htilh efforts on its part: that might establish good cause for the entire period 

its late-filed answer wa:s overdue. The Complainant's Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted 

should, therefore, be granted. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 9111 day of April2012. 

HOWARD L MARTIN, JR. 

Regional Counsel 

By:~__._· -

Glenn H. Brown 

Senior Attorney 

2 
04/18/2012 08~38 FAX 2024835142 FAA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Re: Pathfinder Aviation, Inc. 

FAA Docket No. [To be assjgned] 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012·0028 

+ OMS ~ 003/003 

I hereby certify that on this date I served a copy of the COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE 'fO 

RESPONDENT'S R~PLY TO MOTION TO DEEM ALLEGATIONS ADMITTED by 

placing it in the United States Mail, postage-prepaid, ceJtified mail, return receipt requested, 

addressed as follows: 

111e Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Of1lce of Hearings, M-20; . 

U.S. Depa1tmer1t ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washinbrton, DC 20590 

Michael W. Fell, President 

Pathfinder Aviation, Inc., Respondent 

P.O. Box 375 

Homer, AK 99603 

I further certify that on this date 1 have served the original and one copy of the 

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSETO RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO MOTION TO DEEM 

· ALLEGATIONS ADMITTED by postage~prepaid, certified mail, retw-n receipt requested, 

addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk. AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-.. Suite 2Wl000 

DATED: ~ f ~C)/ :2_ 

Federal Aviation Administration .. '!----~.. . 

Office of Regional Counsel (} . . · 

222 West. 7th Avenue, Box 14, AAL~7 

Anchorage, Alaska 99513· 7 587