12-138 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Docket No.: FAA-2014-0807 

Complainant, FAA Case No. 2011 SO 190272 

vs. Judge: J.E. Sullivan 

PAZ AVIATION, INC., Location of Hearing: Miami, FL 

Respondent. 

-------- ----~/ 

MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT AND REPLY 

MEMORANDUM CONCERNING RESl'ONDENT'S 

MOTION TO DIMISS 

In response to the Administrator's Amendment of its Complaint, Respondent 

restates its Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of Law initially filed herein, as though 

set forth in full. 

Dismissal of Complaint (and Amended Complaint) pursuant to 49 USC §46301 

To smmnarize, while 14 CFR §13.201 et seq. sets forth the FAA's Rules of 

Practice with regard to Civil Penalty Actions, tho requirements of those rules are 

subordinate to U.S. Statutory Law as set forth in 49 USC §4630 I. While it is true that the 

FAA Administrative Law Judges have held that a Notice of Ptoposed Civil Penalty is 

sufficient to comply with the requirements of the FAA's Rules of Practice, as set forth in 

Respondent's initial memorandum, compliance with 49 USC §46301(d)(7)(C) requires 

the initiation of a lawsuit via the filing of Complaint. In Re Aerocomp, FAA-2005-21 064, 

2005 FAA Lexis 798 (September 29, 2005), citing Johnson v. SEC, 87 F.Jd 484 (D.C. 

Cir 1996) anclJMCo. v. Browner, 17 F.3d 1453 (D.C. Cir 1994). lnAerocomp, the court 

noted the difference between 28 USCA §2462 and the FAA's own rule of procedure 

McDONALD & i'llcDONALll. P. A., P. 0. llox 669122, i\flnml, FL-33166-9428 

TEL: (305) 643-5313, FAX~ (305) 643-4990; E-~·fAIL ·, dnmt@Mcdoualdn!torneys.com 
Docket No.: FAA-2014-0807 

contained in 14 CFR 13.208(d) which gives rise to dismissal if the FAA fails to issue a 

Notice ofProposcd Civil Penalty within two years after the alleged incident giving rise to 

the violation. Similar to 28 USCA §2462, 49 USCA §46J01(d)(7)(C) requires the FAA to 

file its Complaint within two years after the incident giving rise to the alleged violation. 

With regard to 28 USCA §2462, the courts have held that the issuance of a Notice of 

Proposed Civil Penalty is merely a pre-suit informal negotiating activity and that is 

insufficient to stop the tolling of28 USCA §2462. Aerocomp, supra; In Re Aviation 

Brake Service, Inc., 2006 Lexis 226 (March 9, 2006); In Re Karl, FAA-2005-22889, 

2006 DOT Av. Lexis 664 (September 19, 2006). The Administrator attempts to confuse 

the two requirements in order to sho·w compliance with 49 USC §46301 because it cannot 

independently comply with the requirements of the statute. Based upon the foregoing, 

without reiterating the entirety of Respondent's argument set forth in its initial 

memorandum, where the Respondent submits that the entire Complaint should be 

dismissed for failure to comply with 49 USC §4630l(d)(7)(C). 

Affirmative Defense of Laches 

The Administrator argues that Respondent cannot prove facts giving rise to the 

Affirmative Defense of Laches, The Administrator makes this argument without 

reference to any evidentiary basis contradicting the affrdavit of Respondent that sets forth 

the minimum requirements for the laches defense. The burden of going forward with the 

evidence then shifts to the Administrator and the Administrator completely failed to meet 

that bmden. In an attempt to catch its fingernails on some evidentiary item, the 

Administrator makes much to do about the statement obtained by the FAA from one of 

Respondent's employees. The employee's statement is: 

2 

i'llcDONALD & McDONALD. P. A., P. 0. no~ 669!22, i\liami, FL 33166~9.J28 

TEL.: (305) 643-5313, FAX: (305) 643-4990; E-MAIL: dmm@Mcdonaldauorneys.com 

Vlld o;;z::n S ~OZ/6 ~190 V jO Z a6i!d 
DockcfNo,.: FAA-·20 14··0807 

"1 AMon\o Y<il1ezTested trliit I'.N. 65"44561·15 S.N.8356 W/0 27429, 

29345 and 25837Flight SpbiJet'Actuator. 1 did noftes:Hbe unit 100% fo1· 

lack ofsbliJC tooling.'' 

The statement is midated. The statetiltllt hidicates that lv!i Yal1e$ cotlldnoi test lhe tmit 

eompleteJy,but.faiiS·fO Statewhilt test he COLJ)cl not pcrfo\·niar1cliai\sto st<\tewhatto6Ji11g 

he \vas rliissi!1g. Based bit the foregbhJg, the state111Cnt has i1o eViclentiruy value as to 

whether or nottherespotidcilt h<id.the tooling, w11iChis th¢ sUbject matterofthe 

Administriltor's Complain toll any given date. At!he very worst case for Respondei1t, it 

would. olily provide ev[delite ;.vith tegard i6 the.s]Jedfic'p~ttt by serirutttihibet and tmtth~ 

nwltittlcl~ ofHllegeclviolatipnsthat the Administrator aHeges occm:red. The only evidence 

befoh~ the comt at (his tilh.estitlJ'H:n'!s R(')spondent' s po.~itkm tlUtt it was prejudieecl..by the 

FAA's fail we to tintely bringthisactlon. 

Based l1j)onthef6l'egoing, !iol\\~tbstattdihg the Achniitistrator'samettclment of the 

Complaint deleting those allegations which vlol~ted oftheAdtninisn·ator's owh rules of 

practice,th.e Coniplaintstill fails to c:omply wlth tlie srattltoty tequ!ti:nle)tts of49 tJSC 

§4630Tam:l the FAA has failed to carryils httrClen goi!lg Jorwatd with the evideitce to 

coJittadiet the facts giVing dse to R.e,~polldetit'sAfflblitrtive Defelise ofLaches., Based 

upon the tbrego!ng, Responcle1Jt respectfully requests tbatthe Anlended Con1!Jlaint be 

dismissed ili its entirety and such firrther relief as this Cwrt deetns equitable Ol'just. 

Respectfully subnlittecf, 

J 

i\rtDONAltf &:·f\ItDONALD.- P,;-A,,._P: 0:· Box· 669-t21;-I\JJami~ FL 3·3166~.9428 

tEL:_ (305}'6.43 ~:53 .13,.-FAX: .005} 643-4990;. E-IV1A JL: d!iil'ir@'McJcn·I;'Jldtl\forneys,~i.:i'tn 
Docket No.: FAA·20l4-0807 

CERTlFICATiii Ol<'SERVIq; · 

I HEREBY certifythat thet)riginalat1d one copy ofthc·.fotegoi:tigwas faxeda11d 

mailed this 1911 ' day of J\ll1e, 2015 to: 

HoiJ. J.E. Sullivali, Administrative Law Judge 

Offic¢ofHeatings, M-20 

U.S. Depattlnent ofTransj)brtatiOii 

l200New JctscyAvenne, S.E. (Ell-JiO) 

Washlngt6i1, DC 20590 . 

202-366-694 I .. 

202-366-7536- fax 

Hearing Docket Cl<:rk (original +· l cop)') 

FAA, AGC-430, Sclite2W!OOO 

Wilbur WtightJ3uildil1g··· 

800 I11dependence · Avem16; SW 

Washington, DC 2059! 

202"267cl293 ~.fax . 

Willimit Vines, Altomey 

t•'edera! AviatitHl Aclininistmtiot1 

Officeofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7· 

So1ltheh1 Region 

170.1 Cohlillbia AveJittc 

Coll<lge Patk,. GA 30337 

4Q4 305-5200 -tel. 

404 305"522T"'"fax 

Co!JijJlcd!lcm! ;.Y Cot/hsel 

Paz Aviation, Il1c. 

c/o Jay Allen, Pi·es.idcht 

745.5 W 2"" CoUrt 

Hialeah; l?L 33014;4:301 

Re.~p011den! 

McDONALD & McDONALD, P .A 

AltOl'J)eys fot· Res1jondent 

P 0 Box 669122 

Miami, FL 3:316<5-9428 

(305) 643,.5313 

(305) 643"4990 ~fax 

dtnn1@Mcdo1laldattornevs.com -...-":'~:·"\: '" '-' -_- "' ·;,,_--~, .. , --' ' ;.: '7 

,j ... . \ ....... <· 7/J",(i''[\···· .... ..•. /ij' J.t?~'..:~ ... · .. · :>:~~ZQYt>/(_l~~ .. e::;:::> IDavtd M, McDonald , 

Fl<r, Bar No, 08443 80 

- - ------ - i\l'CDONA'lifi&· 1\ltD.ONALD,·r. A,,. 'P. 0 .. nux 6-69122', i'tfi':ltii'ij_FLJ3l66-9428 

TEL: (31J5}(i43-53l3i FAX:: (3:05} 64'3-4€J90;-. E-l~At;\lL'·-dlllili@McdOna1drt1t{)m~YS.cCun'