>-v^>i-;SPORTATii'^'f-.i 

r. .•^ ^ 1/ r f f-'r-lr- r, •. -i ^ ' ' 

•y.SERVED:-MARCH7,-2012 '?;!(/ ^tff/ m i ~'S p [; 33 

.J J : 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

JOSEPH MOESSER 

FAA DOCKET No. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penally Case) 

DMSNo . FAA-2011-1286 

ORDER DENYING COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

A^JD SECOND MOTION FOR DECISION 

The genesis of the pleadings under review is the Order of February 7, 2012, which 

accepted the late-filed answer of Respondent Joseph Moesser ("Respondent" or 

"Moesser") and vacated the undersigned's January 31, 2012 Order to Show Cause 

("OSC"). The OSC had been issued in response to the Motion for Decision of January 

10, 2012 filed by Complainant Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant"), the 

grounds for which was the asserted failure of Respondent to file an Answer to the 

Complaint. Respondent filed a purported answer on February 6, prior to the February 10 

deadline established by the OSC The Order of February 7, in addition to accepting . 

Respondent's Answer, vacated the OSC and, by implication, denied Complainant's 

Motion for Decision. 

' Laler pleadings indicate thai Respondent apparently had filed a purported answer on January 12, 2012. six 

days after its answer had been due and two days after Complainant's first Motion for Decision. This 

document was not received by the undersitjned. however. 
Coniplainant then moved to reconsider the Order and again asked for a decision 

{see Motioji for Rccunsideiation and Second Motion for Decision, Fcbntary 14, 2012). 

In support, it states (ha( Respondent pied guilty to a criminal olTensc involving the same 

occurrence which is the subject of the civil charges.before nie today. As such. 

Complainant argues, the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars Mr. Moesser's substantive 

defenses. Complainani also asscrls thai Respondent's ])urporied answer to the Complaint 

should be refused because Respondent neither requested an extension of time to file nor 

offered good eansc for the untimely filing. Respondent counlcvcd that Complainant lias 

misapplied (he doctrine of issue preclusion; further, it urges receipt of its answer 

("Response to Complainant's Second Motion for Decision." February 27, 2012). 

Complainani also filed a Reply ("Reply to Respondent's Response to Secojid Motion for 

Decision," March I, 2012). I will accept all pleadings in my discretion.-

A motion for decision under the Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R. §13.218(f)(5), is 

comparable to a motion for sunmiary judgment under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. Pacific Aviation International. Inc., cl/b/a Inter-island Helicopters. FAA 

Order No. 97-8 (February 20, 1997), p. 8; Horizon Air Industries, FAA Order No. 96-24 

(August 13, 1996), p. 6 n. 3. On such a motion, all evidetice and inferences nuist be 

viewed in the light most favorable to the nonnioving party. Respondent has offered a 

detailed and conceivable defense to Complainant's various contentions. Against this 

background, I cannot conclude thai no genuine issue of material fact exists and that 

Complainant is entitled to a decision as a matter of law. 

I also reject again Complainant's motion asking me to decline to accept 

Respondent's late-filed answer. My ruling rnust be viewed in light of the Administrator's 

statement that a hearing is "fundamental" to the notion of due process of law, and, as 

such, "[wjhenever possible, cases should be disposed of on the merits after a hearing, 

rather than summarily because of a procedural defect." David Uovd Cornwall, FAA 

Order No. 92-47 (July 22, 1992), p. 7. 

In view of the foregoing. Complainant's Motion for Reconsideration and Second 

Motion for Decision are DENIED. The matter will proceed. 

//^-ck^4' CLr^M^^i^ 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

"As such, I deny Respondent's motion to strike. See Motion to Strike Complainani's Motion for 

Reconsideration and Second Motion for Decision, February 24, 2012. 
FDMS No. FAA-2011-1286 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention; Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Gregory G. Skordas, Respondent's Counsel 

Skordas, Caston & Hyde, LLC 

341 South Main Street, Suite 303 

Salt Lake City, UT 84111 -2707 

TEL: 801-531-7444 

FAX: 801-531-8885 

Jeffrey M. Harper, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue S.W. 

Renton,WA 98057 

TEL: 425-227-2161 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20. 

U.S. Department of Transportation ' 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant/Paralegal 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Scr\'ice was by U.S. Mail. For ser\'ice 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; Artention: Hearing Docket Clerk. AGC-430.