•. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL A VIATIQN ADMINISTRATION, FAA DOCKET NO.: FAA-2012-1262 

CASE NO: 2011S0190332 ' 

Complainant, 

vs. 

AERIAL CROP PROTECTION, 

Respondent. ________________________________ / 

RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR DECISION ON THE PLEADINGS OR IN THE 

ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR HEARING ON SANCTION ONLY; AND MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER 

Respondent, AERIAL CROP PROTECTION ["Aerial Crop"], responds to the Complainant, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ["FAA"]'s Motion for Decision on the Pleadings or 

in the Alternative, Motion for Hearing on Sanction Only ["Motion"], and Motion for Extension of 

Time to File Answer, says: 

1. Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. 13.218(b), Respondent, FAA, was required to "personally deliver or 

mail a copy of the complaint on the respondent, the president of the corporation or company 

named as a respondent, or a person designated by the respondent to accept service of 

documents in the civil penalty action." 

2. Petitioner, FAA, did not serve Respondent,' Aerial Crop, or the president of the company. 

3. Apparently, Petitioner, FAA, sought service on Respondent's Counsel. 

4. The undersigned was Counsel for Respondent in the civil penalty action. 

5. However, the undersigned understood that the Complaint was going to be served on 
.. 

Federal Aviation Administration vs. Aerial Crop Protection 

FAA Docket No.: FAA-2012-1262 

Case No: 2011S0190332 

Response to Motion for Decision on the Pleadings or in the Alternative, Motion 

for Hearing on SanctionOnly; and Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer 

Page 2 of3 

Respondent, not Respondent's Counsel. In fact, the undersigned has beenawaiting service 

on Respondent to proceed with the defense. 

6. Oddly, the undersigned was in constant communication with Petitioner's Counsel, who never 

raised the issue of service of the Complaint nor that an answer was due. 

7. In fact, several e-mails were exchange between the undersigned and Petitioner's Counsel on 

Tuesday, February 26, 2013, the day that the Motion was faxed. But, thee-mails took 

place before the Motion was filed. 

8. Further, again on the same day, the undersigned called Petitioner's Counsel to discuss 

I ; 

settlement, but had to leave a message. wit.h the assistant. However, Petitioner's Counsel 

never called back to raise the issue of the Motion or the Answer. Afterwards, the Motion 

was received faxed to the undersigned. 

9. Why Petitioner's Counsel "sand-bagged" the issue unknown, but, if Counsel for Petitioner 

intended to pursue the issue, she could have, and should have, raised the issue with 

Respondent's Counsel who would have immediately responded to the Complaint. 

10. Since this is Respondent's Counsel's first matter with the Federal Aviation Administration, 

and since Respondent's Counsel immediately filed this response and requested an extension 

oftime to file the Answer, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A," Respondent's Counsel 

has set forth a good cause showing why it should be granted the extension of time to allow 
the Answer to be filed. 

Federal Aviation Administration vs. Aerial Crop Protection 

FAA Docket No.: FAA-2012-1262 

Case No: 2011S0190332 

Response to Motion for Decision on the Pleadings or in the Alternative, Motion 

for Hearing on Sanction Only; and Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer 

Page 3 of3 

WHEREFORE, Respondent, Aerial Crop, prays for an Order which: (a) grants the Motion; 

(b) extends the time to file an Answer; (c) authorizes the Answer attached hereto to be filed; and (d) 

grants such further relief deemed just and appropriate. 

SUBMITTED this E._ day of ~b..w0o '2013 

P~IELDS,SR CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. Mail and Facsimile 

upon: Andrea Michelle Harper, Esquire, Senior Attorney, Federal Aviation Administration, Office 

of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7, Post Office Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320 (Facsimile: 404-

305-5223); the Honorable J.E. Sullivan, DOT, Administrative Law Judge, Office ofHearings, M-20, 

1200 New Jersey A venue, S.E. (E 11-31 0), Washington, D.C. 20590 (Facsimile: 202-366-7536); and 

the Federal Aviation Administration, Hearing Docket, AGC-430, ATTN: Stephanie McClain, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW, Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000, Washington, D.C. 20591 

(Facsimile: 202-493-5020), on this ]., =t day of RbM.,~ , 2013. 

PRESTON J. FIELDS, P.A. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

11211 Prosperity Farms Road, Suite C-301 

Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 

Telephone: (561) 799-9910 

Facsi 'le: (561) 799-0388 

PRESTON~. FIELDS, SR. 

Florida Bar Number: 0867616 

E-mail: pjfields@southernlawfirm.com 

\\Cp2-server\cpshare\CPWIN\HISTOR Y\121121_000 I \709.08\pjf\163-0 12c-Doc.8 
EXHIBIT "A" 

PRESTON J. FIELDS, P.A. 11211 PROSPERITY FARMS ROAD, SUITE C-301, PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA 33410 

TELEPHONE (561) 799.9910 • FACSIMILE (561) 799-0388 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, FAA DOCKET NO.: FAA-2012-1262 

CASE NO: 2011S0190332 

Complainant, 

vs. 

AERIAL CROP PROTECTION, 

Respondent. 

------------------------------~' 

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

Respondent, AERIAL CROP PROTECTION ["Aerial Crop"], pursuant to 14 CFR § 13.209, 

l I 

hereby files this Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint filed by the Complainant, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ["FAA''], and says: 

1. Admitted. 

2. Without knowledge. 

3. Admitted that on said date Respondent, Aerial Crop, did not have a valid agricultural aircraft 

operator certificate. 

4. Admitted that a discussion took place. All other provisions not specifically admitted are 

hereby denied. 

5. Admitted that a discussion took place. All other provisions not specifically admitted are 

hereby denied. 

6. Admitted that Respondent, Aerial Crop, performed commercial aerial chemical operations 

in western Palm Beach County, Florida. All other provisions not specifically admitted are 
hereby denied. 

7. Denied. 

Federal Aviation Administration vs. Aerial Crop Protection 

FAA Docket No.: FAA-2012-1262 

Case No: 2011 S0190332 

Answer and Affirmative Defenses 

Page 2 of4 

8. The statute speaks for itself. All other provisions not specifically admitted are hereby denied. 

9. Denied. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

10. First Affirmative Defense. Respondent, Aerial Crop, affirmatively asserts the defense of 

estoppel. As confirmed in the Complaint, the Petitioner, FAA, discussed the issue with 

Respondent. Factually, Respondent made an application with Petitioner approximately three 

and one-half years before Petitioner went to Respondent's facility. Petitioner acknowledged 

that it delayed the application process because it did not have enough personnel to process 

Respondent's application and ultimately unilaterally closed the application file without 

addressing the issue with Respondent. During the on-site meeting, when Petitioner spoke 

with Respondent, it did not direct that Respondent cease it's operation. Thus, the Petitioner 

allowed Respondent to continue its operations while Petitioner sought to clean-up its 

administrative issues. Based thereon, the Petitioner is estopped from now asserting that 

Respondent is in violation of any rule or that it should be fined. Accordingly, the Complaint 

should be avoided. 

11. Second Affirmative Defense. Respondent, Aerial Crop, affirmatively asserts the defense 
Federal Aviation Administration vs. Aerial Crop Protection 

FAA Docket No.: FAA-2012-1262 

Case No: 20l!S0190332 

Answer and Affirmative Defenses 

Page 3 of4 

of unclean hands. Respondent realleges the factual assertions as set forth in the First 

Affirmative Defense and incorporates them herein. Based thereon, the allegations in the 

Complaint should be avoided. 

12. Third Affirmative Defense. Respondent, Aerial Crop, affirmatively asserts the defense of 

bad faith. Respondent realleges the factual assertions as set forth in the First Affirmative 

Defense and incorporates them herein. Based thereon, the allegations in the Complaint 

should be avoided. 

SUBMITTED this 2 T day of H~ 

J. FIELDS, SR. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. Mail and Facsimile 

upon: Andrea Michelle Harper, Esquire, Senior Attorney, Federal Aviation Administration, Office 

ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7, Post Office Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320 (Facsimile: 404-

305-5223); the Honorable J.E. Sullivan, DOT, Administrative Law Judge, Office ofHearings, M-20, 

1200 New Jersey A venue, S.E. (E 11-31 0), Washington, D.C. 20590 (Facsimile: 202-366-7536); and 

the Federal Aviation Administration, Hearing Docket, AGC-430, ATTN: Stephanie McClain, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW, Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000, Washington, D.C. 20591 
(Facsimile: 202-493-5020), on this 2.-1-

Federal Aviation Administration vs. Aerial Crop Protection 

FAA Docket No.: FAA-2012-1262 

Case No: 2011 SO 190332 

Answer and Affirmative Defenses 

Page 4 of4 

'2013. 

PRESTON J. FIELDS, P.A. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

11211 Prosperity Farms Road, Suite C-301 

Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 

Telephone: (561) 799-9910 

Facsimile: (561) 799-0388 

PRESTON J. FIELDS, SR. 

Florida Bar Number: 0867616 

E-mail: pj fields@southemlawfirm.com 

\\Cp2-server\cpshare\CPWIN\HISTOR Y\ 121121_ 000 1\709.09\pjf\ 163-0 12c-Doc.8