In The Matter Of: 

## SERVED: JANUARY 16, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC ··---'.
) ) ) ) 

### ) DocketNo. FAA-2013-0290 JET LOGISTICS, INC. Case No. 2012EA680047 Respondent


### ORDERGRANTING PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE AGREED PART OF CASE
On September 24,2013, an Order Granting Continuance and Other Reliefwas filed. Among otherthings, this Order accepted and confirmed Jet Logistics, Inc.'s ("Respondent") offer ofadmissions contained in its July 15,2013 Answer, which included admissions to three (3) ofthe seven (7}FAA charged violations (i.e., ViolationNos. 2, 3, and 4). On October 30, 2013, an Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures was filed. OnNovember4, 2013, the FAA filed Complainant's Motion for Decision seeking partial "summaryjudgment" onthe violations of 14 C.F.R. 

### §§ 119.5(g), 119.50), and 119.5(1). This Motion was based onthe Respondent's answers and the admissions ofthree (3) violations, which had been previously acknowledged and accepted by this administrative courtin the September 24, 2013 pre-hearing Order. As oftoday's date, January 16, 2014, the

### prose Respondent has not filed any objection orresponse to the FAA'sNovember 4, 2013 Motion for Decision. Pursuantto 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 partialjudgment onthe agreed part ofthe case. , 

### A. Notice ofViolation and Proposed Penalty Assessment On or about June 17, 2013 the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Division Administrator for the EasternRegion filed a Complaint with the U.S. Department ofTransportation's (DOT) Office ofHearings in which the FAA alleged that the Respondent, Jet Logistics, Inc., had committed seven (7) violations 1 ofthe 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 PartialDecision The FAA'sNovember 4, 2013 Motion for Decision seeks ajudgment onthe merits of three (3) ofthe seven (7) alleged violations ofthe :f,AR (i.e., (i.e., ViolationNos. 2, 3, and 4), with litigation reserved onthe proposed civil penalty for those 3 Violations, as well as any other proven violations, during the evidentiary hearing scheduled onJuly 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 motionfor a decision onthe merits, in advance ofan evidentiary hearing when a party asserts that there are no disputed material issues offact to be heard on a particular issue. The party making the motion is entitledto a decision as a matter oflaw ifit shows that there is "no genuine issue ofmaterial fact disputed by the parties." A fact is "material" ifit is capable ofaffecting the substantial outcome ofthe litigation. Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889, 895 (D.C. Circuit 2006);Anderson v. LibertyLobbyInc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). A dispute is "genuine" ifthe.evidence is suchthat a reasonable trier of fact couldreturn a verdict for the non-moving party. See, Scott v. Harris, 5550 US 372, 380 (2007); Liberty LobbyInc., 477 US at 248, Holcomb, 433 F.3d at 895. Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(t)(5), a motion for apartial decision onthe merits priorto a testimonial hearing may be based on "admissions" and/or on "matters thatthe administrative lawjudge has officially noticed." Once a fact has been agreed to bybothparties, and submitted to the trial court onthe record as a proposed finding offact, it need not beproved at trial. 3 Am. Jur.2dAgreedCase §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

1The 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 of6the parties attrial. See, Fed. Civ. Rule 16; Steven Baicker-McKee, et.al, Federal CivilRules Handbook, West Publishing (2012)(Rule 16(d)-Pretrial Orders). 

### D. Standard ofReview Facts and lawexamined forjudgment onagreed facts is distinguished from summary judgmentreview, because there is no dispute regarding the agreed factual material. Thus, the parties are not required to submittestimonial statements and/or admissible evidence in support of the agreed facts. In addition, the court's consideration ofthe submitted agreed material need not be weighted in favor ofthe non-movingparty.2 Judgment rendered on agreed facts is also distinguished fromjudgmentby party**~tipulation** orconsent, since the final determination on matters oflaw is made by the court, and not by the parties. 3 Am. Jur.2dAgreedCase §32. In the submission forjudgment on an agreed part ofthe case, the court standard for decision is whether

- based onthe submission ofagreed facts

-- the complaining party is entitled to recover in any form and under any proper pleading. 3 Am. Jur.2dAgreedCase §§ 23, 30 and 32. The specificity ofsubmitted agreed facts need be no more particularthan whatis required for the statement offacts in a pleading. 3 Am. Jur.2dAgreedCase §21. Indeed, an agreed submission may incorporate the facts stated inthe complaint. 3 Am. Jur.2dAgreedCase §24. Eachparty may submit argument about what conclusions oflaw should result from the court's consideration ofthe agreed factual submission. It should be noted, however, that evenin an agreed case, the court is not bound by submitted statements that are expressions ofopinion or that are inconsistent with agreed facts inthe submission. 3 Am. Jur.2dAgreedCase §§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 urgedby oneparty orto the conclusionurged 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.2dAgreedCase, §§ 23 and 31.

2 On a motion for summaryjudgment, specific facts alleged by eitherparty must be supportedby admissible documents and/or credible testimonial declarations. All evidence and inferences mustbe 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 limitedto only those issues of lawthat are raised by the submitted agreed facts. 3 Am. Jur.2dAgreedCase, 

### §§26, 29, 30, and 32. E. FAA Submissions in Support ofMotion As part ofits 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 ofMotion As previously noted herein, the Respondent did not objectto the FAA's Exhibit Submissions, and did not submit any further materials for consideration ofthe motion. The record clearly reflects that the Respondent sought early in the proceedings to clarifythe 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) ofthe seven (7) alleged violations ofthe FAR (i.e., (i.e., ViolationNos. 2, 3, and 4). These admissions to the violations were codified in the administrative court's September 24, 2013 Order, which is binding onthe parties.

G. Submitted Agreed Facts Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. §13.218(f)(5), and the FAA'sthree 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 Complaintare admitted as the agreed part ofthe case: 1. 

### At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Respondent held Part 135 Air Carrier Certificate No. ZP7A427J. 2. At all times relevantto this proceeding, Respondent's operation were subjectto the requirements ofthe Respondent's operations specifications.

3 The FAA'sNovember4, 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 numberN790PA ("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 # 1was a Part 135 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 overthe Pacific Ocean.

H. Conclusions ofLaw Based on Agreed Factual Submission In the case herein, the parties also agreed that the submitted facts leadto the conclusion the Respondent did committhree (3) ofthe seven (7) alleged violations. The following conclusions oflaw were admitted by the Respondent in its Answer, and confirmed as admitted in the September 24, 2013 Order: 1. ViolationNo.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 inviolation of, an appropriate certificate and appropriate operations specifications. 2. ViolationNo.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 areathat the Respondent's operations specifications did not specifically authorize the Respondent to operate. 3. ViolationNo.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 ofits air carrier operating certificate or appropriate operations specifications. Page 5 of6

### Based onthe 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 oflaw, to the conclusions oflaw submitted by the FAA and agreed to by the Respondent. 2. There no genuine issue ofmaterial 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'sJune 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)), ViolationNo.3 (14 C.F.R. § 119.5G)), and ViolationNo.4 (14 C.F.R. § 119.5(1)) as identified in the FAA'sJune 17, 2013 Complaint. 4. The FAA is granted partialjudgment as a matter oflaw onthe agreedpart ofthis case. 5. The Hearing set for July 29,2014- July 31,2014 in Charlotte, North Carolinais reconfirmed, and shall be limited to the following disputed issues: a) Whetherthe FAA correctly charged the Respondent withthe remaining four (4) alleged violations in the FAA'sJune 17, 2013 Complaint, i.e., ViolationNo. 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'sproposed civil penalty of$40,000 is appropriate inthis case, based on violations proved, and the facts and circumstances involved.

Attachment: Service List

Page 6 of6SERVICE 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 2Wl0004

Mr. Jose 

### L. Nieves Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration ONE COPY

Office ofthe**Regi~nal** Counsel, Eastern Region 1Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 TEL: 718-553-3278 FAX: 718-995-5699 Mr. W. Ashley Smith, Jr. Respondent'sLayRepresentative Jet Logistics, Inc. 5400 Airport Drive Charlotte, NC 28208 TEL: 919-840-0555 Judge J.E. Sullivan US. Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2132 FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0290 (Civil Penalty Action)

4 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby 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.