In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: JANUARY 16, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

··---'. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. F AA-2013-0290 

JET LOGISTICS, INC. 

Case No. 2012EA680047 

Respondent 

ORDER GRANTING PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON 

THE AGREED PART OF CASE 

On September 24,2013, an Order Granting Continuance and Other Relief was filed. 

Among other things, this Order accepted and confirmed Jet Logistics, Inc.'s ("Respondent") 

offer of admissions contained in its July 15,2013 Answer, which included admissions to three 

(3) ofthe seven (7}FAA charged violations (i.e., Violation Nos. 2, 3, and 4). 

On October 30, 2013, an Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures was filed. 

On November 4, 2013, the FAA filed Complainant's Motion for Decision seeking partial 

"summary judgment" on the violations of 14 C.F.R. §§ 119.5(g), 119.50), and 119.5(1). This 

Motion was based on the Respondent's answers and the admissions of three (3) violations, which 

had been previously acknowledged and accepted by this administrative court in the September 

24, 2013 pre-hearing Order. 

As oftoday's date, January 16, 2014, the prose Respondent has not filed any objection 

or response to the FAA's November 4, 2013 Motion for Decision. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(t)(5) and Civ. R. 56(a), the FAA's Motion for a partial 

Decision, based on admissions and the agreed facts, is essentially a request for partial judgment 

on the agreed part of the case. , 

A. Notice of Violation and Proposed Penalty Assessment 

On or about June 17, 2013 the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Division 

Administrator for the Eastern Region filed a Complaint with the U.S. Department of 
Transportation's (DOT) Office of Hearings in which the FAA alleged that the Respondent, Jet 

Logistics, Inc., had committed seven (7) violations1 of the Federal Aviation Regulations 

("FAR"), under 14 C.F.R. §91.13 et. seq. The FAA proposed a total penalty of$40,000 for the 

violations. 

B. FAA's Request for Partial Decision 

The FAA's November 4, 2013 Motion for Decision seeks ajudgment on the merits of 

three (3) of the seven (7) alleged violations of the :f,AR (i.e., (i.e., Violation Nos. 2, 3, and 4), 

with litigation reserved on the proposed civil penalty for those 3 Violations, as well as any other 

proven violations, during the evidentiary hearing scheduled on July 29,2014- July 31,2014. 

C. Applicable Law 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(t)(5), a party may file motions, including a motion for a 

decision on the merits, in advance of an evidentiary hearing when a party asserts that there are no 

disputed material issues of fact to be heard on a particular issue. The party making the motion is 

entitled to a decision as a matter of law if it shows that there is "no genuine issue of material fact 

disputed by the parties." 

A fact is "material" if it is capable of affecting the substantial outcome of the litigation. 

Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889, 895 (D.C. Circuit 2006); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 

U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). A dispute is "genuine" ifthe.evidence is such that a reasonable trier of 

fact could return a verdict for the non-moving party. See, Scott v. Harris, 5550 US 372, 380 

(2007); Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 US at 248, Holcomb, 433 F.3d at 895. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(t)(5), a motion for a partial decision on the merits prior to 

a testimonial hearing may be based on "admissions" and/or on "matters that the administrative 

law judge has officially noticed." Once a fact has been agreed to by both parties, and submitted 

to the trial court on the record as a proposed finding of fact, it need not be proved at trial. 3 Am. 

Jur.2d Agreed Case §20 and §30. In addition, the Respondent's admissions, identified and 

accepted by this administrative court in its September 24, 2013 pre-hearing Order, are binding on 

1 The seven (7) violations are contained under paragraph III in the FAA's June 17, 2013 Complaint, and identified as 

paragraph III subsections (a)-(g). For ease in reference, these violations are more formally identified in this 

proceeding as Violation Nos. 1-7. 

Page 2 of6 
the parties at trial. See, Fed. Civ. Rule 16; Steven Baicker-McKee, et.al, Federal Civil Rules 

Handbook, West Publishing (2012)(Rule 16(d)-Pretrial Orders). 

D. Standard of Review 

Facts and law examined for judgment on agreed facts is distinguished from summary 

judgment review, because there is no dispute regarding the agreed factual material. Thus, the 

parties are not required to submit testimonial statements and/or admissible evidence in support of 

the agreed facts. In addition, the court's consideration of the submitted agreed material need not 

be weighted in favor of the non-movingparty.2 Judgment rendered on agreed facts is also 

distinguished from judgment by party ~tipulation or consent, since the final determination on 

matters of law is made by the court, and not by the parties. 3 Am. Jur.2d Agreed Case §32. 

In the submission for judgment on an agreed part of the case, the court standard for 

decision is whether - based on the submission of agreed facts -- the complaining party is entitled 

to recover in any form and under any proper pleading. 3 Am. Jur.2d Agreed Case §§ 23, 30 and 

32. The specificity of submitted agreed facts need be no more particular than what is required for 

the statement of facts in a pleading. 3 Am. Jur.2d Agreed Case §21. Indeed, an agreed 

submission may incorporate the facts stated in the complaint. 3 Am. Jur.2d Agreed Case §24. 

Each party may submit argument about what conclusions of law should result from the court's 

consideration of the agreed factual submission. It should be noted, however, that even in an 

agreed case, the court is not bound by submitted statements that are expressions of opinion or 

that are inconsistent with agreed facts in the submission. 3 Am. Jur.2d Agreed Case §§23, 27 

and 30. 

In addition, there cannot be any decision on an agreed case unless the submitted agreed 

facts lead necessarily, as a matter oflaw, either to the conclusion urged by one party or to the 

conclusion urged by the other. 3 Am. Jur.2dAgreed Case §§23 and 31. Ifthe facts are such that 

conflicting legal inferences can be drawn, the court may not draw them but must dismiss the 

submission. 3 Am. Jur.2d Agreed Case, §§ 23 and 31. 

2 On a motion for summary judgment, specific facts alleged by either party must be supported by admissible 

documents and/or credible testimonial declarations. All evidence and inferences must be viewed in light most 

favorable to non-moving party. See, Steven Baicker-McKee, et.al, Federal Civil Rules Handbook, West Publishing 

(2012)(Rule 56). 

Page 3 of6 
The court's rendering of judgment on agreed facts is also limited to only those issues of 

law that are raised by the submitted agreed facts. 3 Am. Jur.2d Agreed Case, §§26, 29, 30, and 

32. 

E. FAA Submissions in Support of Motion 

As part of its November 4, 2013 Motion for Decision, the FAA submitted the following 

three (3) Exhibits: 

1. (A-1) June 17,2013 FAA Complaint 

2. (A-2) July 15, 2013 Respondent Answer 

3. (A-3) Partial Transcript from the September 24, 2013 Prehearing Conference 3 

F. Respondent Submissions in Support of Motion 

As previously noted herein, the Respondent did not object to the FAA's Exhibit 

Submissions, and did not submit any further materials for consideration of the motion. The 

record clearly reflects that the Respondent sought early in the proceedings to clarify the issues in 

dispute. It admitted to certain alleged facts in its Answer. It also confirmed, during the 

September 24, 2013 Prehearing Conference, that it had admitted to three (3) of the seven (7) 

alleged violations of the FAR (i.e., (i.e., Violation Nos. 2, 3, and 4). These admissions to the 

violations were codified in the administrative court's September 24, 2013 Order, which is 

binding on the parties. 

G. Submitted Agreed Facts 

Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. §13.218(f)(5), and the FAA's three submitted Exhibits, which 

includes the admissions offered by the Respondent in its' Answer, the following facts contained 

in the FAA's June 17, 2013 FAA Complaint are admitted as the agreed part of the case: 

1. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Respondent held Part 13 5 Air Carrier 

Certificate No. ZP7A427J. 

2. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent's operation were subject to the 

requirements of the Respondent's operations specifications. 

3 The FAA's November 4, 2013 Motion for Decision identifies the transcript as dated September 17, 2013. This is a 

clerical error. The transcript properly records that the Conference was held on September 24, 2013. (9/24/13 Tr. 1.) 

Page 4of6 
3. On or about June 28, 2012, the Respondent operated a BAE-125-800A aircraft, 

identification number N790P A ("the Aircraft") on a flight from Monterey Peninsula, 

California, to Honolulu, Hawaii ("Flight #1 "). 

4. On or about July 3, 2012, the Respondent operated the Aircraft on a flight from Kakului, 

Hawaii to Oakland, California ("Flight #2"). 

5. Flight # 1 was a Part 13 5 flight. 

6. RobinS. Dill acted as pilot in command ("PIC") operating the Aircraft for Flight #1. 

7. Luis A. Rios acted as second in command operating the Aircraft for Flight # 1. 

8. Flight #2 was a Part 135 flight. 

9. RobinS. Dill acted as PIC operating the Aircraft for Flight #2. 

10. Both Flight #1 and Flight #2 were extended operations over the Pacific Ocean. 

11. The Respondent was not authorized to conduct extended overseas operations over the 

Pacific Ocean. 

H. Conclusions of Law Based on Agreed Factual Submission 

In the case herein, the parties also agreed that the submitted facts lead to the conclusion 

the Respondent did commit three (3) of the seven (7) alleged violations. The following 

conclusions of law were admitted by the Respondent in its Answer, and confirmed as admitted in 

the September 24, 2013 Order: 

1. Violation No.2: The Respondent violated 14 C.F.R. § 119.5(g) by operating Flight #1 

and Flight #2 as a direct air carrier or commercial operator without, or in violation of, an 

appropriate certificate and appropriate operations specifications. 

2. Violation No.3: The Respondent violated 14 C.F.R. § 119.50) by operating Flight #1 

and Flight #2 under 14 C.F.R. chapter I part 135 in a geographical area that the 

Respondent's operations specifications did not specifically authorize the Respondent to 

operate. 

3. Violation No.4: The Respondent violated 14 C.F.R. § 119.5(/) by operating Flight #1 and 

Flight #2 under 14 C.F.R. chapter I part 135 in violation of its air carrier operating 

certificate or appropriate operations specifications. 

Page 5 of6 
Based on the foregoing, and after having reviewed all court documents, relevant caselaw, 

regulations, statutes, and being fully advised: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 

1. The submitted agreed facts lead necessarily, as a matter of law, to the conclusions of law 

submitted by the FAA and agreed to by the Respondent. 

2. There no genuine issue of material fact in dispute regarding Violation No.2 (14 C.P.R.§ 

119.5(g)), Violation No.3 (14 C.P.R.§ 119.50)), and Violation No.4 (14 C.P.R. § 

119.5(1)) contained in the FAA's June 17, 2013 Complaint. 

3. Based on the agreed facts, the Respondent is found to have committed, as a matter oflaw, 

Violation No.2 (14 C.F.R. § 119.5(g)), Violation No.3 (14 C.F.R. § 119.5G)), and 

Violation No.4 (14 C.F.R. § 119.5(1)) as identified in the FAA's June 17, 2013 

Complaint. 

4. The FAA is granted partial judgment as a matter of law on the agreed part of this case. 

5. The Hearing set for July 29,2014- July 31,2014 in Charlotte, North Carolina is 

reconfirmed, and shall be limited to the following disputed issues: 

a) Whether the FAA correctly charged the Respondent with the remaining four (4) 

alleged violations in the FAA's June 17, 2013 Complaint, i.e., Violation No. 1 

(14 C.F.R. § 91.13(a)), Violation No.5 (14 C.F.R. § 135.95(b)), Violation No.6 

(14 C.F.R. § 135.293(a)), and Violation No.7 (14 C.F.R. § 135.343); and 

b) Whether the FAA's proposed civil penalty of$40,000 is appropriate in this case, 

based on violations proved, and the facts and circumstances involved. 

Attachment: Service List 

Page 6 of6 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 0004 

Mr. Jose L. Nieves 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

ONE COPY 

Office of the Regi~nal Counsel, Eastern Region 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3278 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

Mr. W. Ashley Smith, Jr. 

Respondent's Lay Representative 

Jet Logistics, Inc. 

5400 Airport Drive 

Charlotte, NC 28208 

TEL: 919-840-0555 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. F AA-2013-0290 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

4 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.