SERVE D MA Y 28 , 201 0 U.S
. DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARIN G WASfflNGTON , D.C
. OFFIC EO FHEARING S - ; ^^i:; ^ :n,iU:\ l

I N TH EMATTE RO F CIT Y O FBRIDGEPORT , CONNECTICUT ,

Respondent
. DOCKE T NO
. CP09NE000 1 (Civi l Penalty Proceeding ) DM S NO
. FAA-2009-097 7
ADMINISTRATIV ELA WJUDGE' S ORDE RDENYIN G COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO N Th e Complainan t

file damotio n o n May 11 , 2010 , askin g for a decisio n i n it s favo r

o n th e merit s o f

th e cas e a s wel l a s th e amoun t o f th e civi l penalt y t o whic hi t

claim s i t i s entitled
. Th e cas e i s schedule dfor a hearin g o n Jun e 10 , 2010
. Th e substanc e o f th e cas e i s th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration' s clai mtha t acivi l penalty i n th e amoun t o f $72,00 0 shoul d b e impose do n th e Respondent , th e City o f Bridgeport , Connecticu t

(City ) becaus e th e conditio n o f

Sikorsky Memoria l Airport , whic hth e City own s an doperates , wa s i n violatio n o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s (FAR ) (an dth e Airport

Certificatio n Manua l provision s incorporate db y referenc e int o th e FAR ) whe n th e FA A inspecte dth e Airport i n Marc h2007
. Th e City ha s no t

specificall y responde dt o th e Complainant' s motion
. However , i n apre-hearin g conferenc e hel do n Ma y 27 , 2010 , th e City' s attorne y askedtha t

th e content s o f

anothe r pleadin g i t

submitte d- areques t fo r reconsideratio n o f

a n orde r imposin g sanction s upo n i t for failin g t o provid e materia l sough t

durin g pre-hearin g discovery - b e considere di n repl y t o th e pendin g dispositiv e motion
. I shal l d o so . Th e Complainant' s motio n i s grounde do n tw o points
. Th e firs t i s tha t b y failin g t o respon di n atimel y manne r t o th e FAA' s discovery requests , th e Responden t

has , i n effect , admitte dth e allegation s o f th e complain t

t owhic hthos e request s wer e directed
. I t i s true , a s th e Complainan t says , that an administrativ e la w judg e i s entitle dunde r th e Procedura l Rule s t o rul e tha t apart y failin g t o provid e discovery materia l an dtha t ignore s an orde r compellin g i t

t o d o s o may b e deeme dt o hav e admitte dth e fact s tha t woul d hav e bee n elicite di f

i t ha ds o responded
. Bu t

tha t i s onl y on e o f

th e sanction s tha t

may b e chose n unde r

1 4 C.F.R
. §13.220(n)
. I t wa s m y decisio n t o g o adifferen t

rout e an dchos e anothe r

sanction , precludin g th e Responden t

fromintroducin g evidenc e o n it s ow n behal f an do n th e merit s at th e hearing
. I continu e t o believ e tha t th e sanctio n I chos e wa s th e prope r one , al l thing s considered
. Othe r thing s bein g equal , I amver y reluctan t t o issu e adecisio n o n th e merit s i n on e o f thes e civi l penalt y case s withou t ascertainin g tha t

th e FA A can presen t

aprim afaci e cas e an dwithou t giving th e advers e party th e opportunity for cross-examinatio n o f

th e FAA' s case . Thes e are , i n m

y judgment , essentia l element s o f du e process , an dthe y shoul dno t

b e lightl y dispense dwitho n apoin t o f pleading
. Th e FAA' s secon dgroun dfor it s motio n deal s withth e Respondent' s failure t o se t

fort han y affirmativ e defense s i n it s answer. Th e Rule s o f Practic e d o obligat e aResponden t t o "specificall y stat e an y affirmativ e defens e tha t

th e responden t

intend s t o assert

at th e hearing. " 1 4 C.F.R
. § 13.209(d)
. Th e answe r

filedb y th e City i n thi s cas e denie dth e allegation s o f th e complain t

tha t se t fort hground s fo

r believin g tha t

th e City ha d violate dth e Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s an dth e term s o f it s ow n Airport Certificatio n Manual
. Th e City wa s give n th e opportunity to , an ddid , se t fort hit s positio n at

lengthdurin g th e pre-hearin g conferenc e o f May 27 , 2010
. Hence , th e Complainan t i s o n notic e o f

th e (truncated ) cas e i t

mus t mee t at th e hearing
. Th e purpos e o f th e technica l rule s o f

pleading , whic h th e Complainan t

ha s invoked , i s t o giv e notic e t o th e advers e party . Th e FA A ha s ha dampl e notic e o f th e Respondent' s position
. Here , again , I amreluctan t t o depriv e th e Responden t o f an y semblanc e o f

ahearin g o n th e basi s o f wha t appear t o b e extremel y technica l argument s base do n th e detaile drule s o f pleading
.Fo r thes e reasons , th e motio n o f th e Complainan t

for adecisio n i n it s favor o n th e merit s a s wel l a s o n th e issu e o f quantu mi s denied
. I T I S S O ORDERED
.

Isaa c D
. Benki n Administrativ e La w Judg e; FA A Docke t

No
. CP09NE000 1 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W100 0

ON ECOP Y Honorabl e Bil l Finch , Mayo r Cit y o f Bridgeport , Responden t City Hal l Anne x 99 9 Broa dStree t Bridgeport , C T 0660 4 Mar k T
. Anastasi , Respondent' s Counse l City Attorney , City o f

Bridgeport 99 9 Broa dStree t

2"' ' Floo r Bridgeport , C T 06604-432 8 TEL : 203-576-808 2 FAX : 203-576-825 2 Th e Honorabl e Isaa c D
. Benkin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E
. Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorne y 202-366-213 9 Lega l Assistan t

202-366-213 2 FAX : 202-366-753 6

Richar dG
. Kascak , Jr
. Associat e City Attorne y Offic e o f th e City Attorne y 99 9 Broa dStreet , 2" " Floo r Bridgeport , C T 06604-432 8 TEL : 203-576-392 8 ¥AK i 203-576-825 2 Joh n R
. Dormelly , Complainant' s Counse l Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counsel , ANE- 7 Ne w Englan dRegio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 1 2 Ne w Englan dExecutiv e Park Burlington , M A 01803-529 9 TEL : 781-238-704 3 FAX : 781-238-705 5