>-v^>i-;SPORTATii'^'f-. i r . .• ^ ^ 1 / rf f-'r-lr - r , •

. -i ^ ' ' 

### •y.SERVED:-MARCH7,-201 2 '?;!( / 

### ^tff / m i ~'S p [ ; 3 3



## . J J :

U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C I N TH EMATTERO F 

## JOSEP H MOESSE R FAA DOCKE T No . [T O B EASSIGNED ]

(Civi l Penall y Case ) DMSNo . FAA-2011-128 6 

### ORDE RDENYIN GCOMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RRECONSIDERATIO N

A^J D SECON D MOTIO N FO RDECISIO N Th e genesi s o f

th e pleading s under

revie w i s th e Order

o f Februar y 7 , 2012 , whic h accepte dth e late-file danswer o f Responden t

Josep hMoesse r

("Respondent " o r "Moesser" ) andvacate dth e undersigned' s January 31 , 201 2 Order t o Sho w Caus e ("OSC") . Th e OS C ha

dbee n issue di

n respons e t o th e Motio n fo r Decisio n of

January 10 , 201 2 filedb

y Complainan t

Federal Aviatio n Administratio n ("Complainant") , th e ground s fo

r whic hwa s th e asserte dfailure o f Responden t

t o fil e a n Answe r to th e Complaint . Responden t

filedapurporte danswer on February 6 , prio r

t o th e Februar

y 1 0 deadlin e establishe dby th e OS C Th e Orde r o f Februar y 7 , i n additio n t o acceptin g . Respondent' s Answer , vacate dth e OS C and , by implication , denie dComplainant' s Motio n fo r Decision .

' Lale rpleading s indicat e tha i Responden t apparentl yhad file d a purporte d answe ro n Januar y12 , 2012 . si x days afte rit s answe rha d bee n du e an d tw o day s afte rComplainant' s firs t Motio n fo rDecision . Thi s documen t wa

s no t receive d b yth e undersitjned . however .Coniplainan t the n move dt o reconside r th e Orde r

an dagai n aske dfo r

adecisio n {se e Motioj i fo r

Rccunsideiatio n an dSecon dMotio n fo r Decision , Fcbntar y 14 , 2012) . In support , i

t state s (ha ( Responden t

pie dguilt y t o acrimina l olTens c involvin g th e sam e occurrenc e whic hi s th e subjec t o f th e civi l charges.befor e ni e today . A s such . Complainan t

argues , th e doctrin e o f collatera l estoppe l bar s Mr . Moesser' s substantiv e defenses . Complainan i als o asscrl s tha i Respondent' s ])urporie danswe r t o th e Complain t shoul db e refuse dbecaus e Responden t neithe r requeste dan extensio n o f tim e t o fil e no r offere dgoo deans c fo r

th e untimel y filing . Responden t counlcvc dtha t

Complainan t

lia s misapplie d(h e doctrin e o f issu e preclusion ; further , it urge s receip t

o f it s answe r ("Respons e t o Complainant' s Secon dMotio n fo r Decision. " Februar y 27 , 2012) . Complainan i als o file daRepl y ("Repl y t o Respondent' s Respons e t o Secoji dMotio n fo r Decision, " Marc hI , 2012) . I wil l accep t al l pleading s i n m y discretion.

- A motio n fo r

decisio n unde r

th e Rule s o f

Practice , 1 4 C.F.R . §13.218(f)(5) , i s comparabl e t o amotio n fo r sunmiar y judgmen t

unde r Rul e 56(c ) o f

th e Federa l Rule s o f Civi l Procedure . Pacifi c Aviatio n International . Inc. , cl/b/ aInter-islan dHelicopters . FA A Orde r No . 97- 8 (Februar y 20 , 1997) , p . 8 ; Horizo n Ai r Industries , FA A Orde r No . 96-2 4 (Augus t 13 , 1996) , p . 6 n . 3 . O n suc hamotion , al l evidetic e an dinference s nuis t b e viewe di n th e ligh t

mos t favorabl e t o th e nonniovin g party . Responden t ha s offere da detaile dan dconceivabl e defens e t o Complainant' s variou s contentions . Agains t thi s background , I canno t

conclud e tha i n o genuin e issu e o f materia l fac t

exist s an dtha t Complainan t

i s entitle dt o adecisio n a s amatte r o f law . I als o rejec t

agai n Complainant' s motio n askin g m e t o declin e t o accep t Respondent' s late-file danswer . M y rulin g rnus t b e viewe din ligh t

o f th e Administrator' s statemen t tha t ahearin g i s "fundamental " t o th e notio n o f du e proces s o f

law , and , a s such , "[wjheneve r

possible , case s shoul db e dispose do f o n th e merit s afte r

ahearing , rathe r tha n summaril y becaus e o f aprocedura l defect. " Davi dUov dCornwall , FA A Orde r No . 92-4 7 (Jul y 22 , 1992) , p . 7 . I n vie w o f th e foregoing . Complainant' s Motio n fo r Reconsideratio n an dSecon d Motio n fo r

Decisio n ar e DENIED . Th e matte r wil l proceed . 

# //^-ck^4 ' CLr^M^^i ^ Richar dC . Goodwi n U.S . Administrativ e La w Judg e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis t

"A s such , I den

y Respondent' s motio

n t o strike . Se

e Motio n t o Strik e Complainani' s Motio

n fo r Reconsideratio

n an dSecon dMotio n fo r Decision , Februar

y 24 , 2012 .FDM S No . FAA-2011-128 6 (Civi l Penalt y 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 2W1000 ' ON ECOP Y Gregor y G . Skordas , Respondent' s Counse l Skordas , Casto n & Hyde , LL C 34 1 Sout hMai n Street , Suit e 30 3 Sal t Lak e City , U T 8411 1 -270 7 TEL : 801-531-744 4 FAX : 801-531-888 5 Jeffre y M . Harper , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counse l Northwes t

Mountai n Region , ANM- 7 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 160 1 Lin dAvenu e S.W . Renton,W A 9805 7 TEL : 425-227-216 1 FAX : 425-227-100 7 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 . U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n ' 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Staf

f Assistant/Paralega l FAX : 202-366-753 6

Scr\'ice wa s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r ser\'ic e i n perso n o r b y expeditedcourier, use th

e followin g address : Federa l Aviatio n Administration , 60

0 Independence Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington . D

C 20591 ; Artention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk. AGC-430 .