OG/11/201 0 10:2 8 FAX 202493514 2 FA A * DMS @100V00 4

U.S . DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSFORATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S D ^f^ ' 

# tJVED M U - 2 2 m HEAf;;N G DOCKE T WASHINGTON , D.C . T N TH E MATTli K

O F AI REVAC , INC . FAA DOCKE T NO . CP10CE000 2 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) DM S No

- FA A - 201 0 - 002 4 v. ? L 

### r 

## HE ' 

# m

•OCKg f

IN THE MATTEROF AI REVAC , INC: . FAA DOCKE T NO . CPlflCEOOO l (Civi l Penalt y Action ) DM S No

- FA A ' 20 J 0 - 002 2 - C 3 r~' 5

AI REVA C EMS' S RESPONS E l O COMPLAINA N J^ S ANSWE RI N OPPOSITIO N T O RESPONDENT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO N

(MOTIO N T O DISMISS ) FA A INVESTIGATIO N 2007CEO3002 6 Althoug h th e rule s o f

1 4 CFRPar

t 1 3 Rule s o f

Practic e i n FA A Civi l Penalty Proceeding s d o no t

specilicall y allo w fo

r arepl y the y d o i

n man y way s incorporat e b y referenc e th e Federal Rule s o f Civi l Procedur e whic h do provid e for repl y motions . I

n any event , Complainant' s Answer i n Oppositio n to Respondent' s Motio n for Decisio n (Motio n t o Dismiss ) [hereinnHer , "FAA' s Opposition" ] i s s o confusin g thai it i s ap t t o J7ii5]ea dth e reader , therefore , Responden t respcctfiill y request s tha

t th e Cour t considerOG/11/201 0 10:2 8 FA X 2024935T4 2 FA A + DM S 0002/00 4

thi s reply . I

n it s opposition , th e FA A continuall y attempt s to merg e th e tw o action s whic h i t initiall y separated . A s explaine di n th e Respondent' s Motio n fo r Decision , th e FA

A ha s brough t tw o (2 ) separat e action s agains t Ai r Eva c EM S Inc. , on e tlia

t relate s t o it s Pari 13 5 Certificate , FAA investigatio n 2007CE030026 , FA A Docke t No . CPlOCROOl ; an done agains t it s Repai r

Station' s Certificate , FAA investigatio n 2007CE03O008 , FAA Docke t CP10CE0002 . Respondent' s Motio n fo

r Decisio n involve donly th e clai magains t th e Pai t 135 , Docke t No . CPlOCEOOOl . Wlien th e FAA brough t the tw o actions , al l o f

th e allegation s i

n th e Amende dComplaint s ("Complaints" ) wer e th e same , excep t th e Par t 13 5 actio n claime dtha

t AJJ

- Kva c EM S flew Part

9 1 wit h a n aircraf t tha t wa s unairworthy . Th e remainde r o f th e allegation s in both Complaint s relate dt o th e conduc t o f th e Repai r

Statio n an dii s mechani c Aaro n Rogers , Althoug h i

n it s Answer s Responden t denie dsom e allegations ; fo r th e purpos e o f th e Motio n fo

r Decisio n regardin g th e Par t 13 5 Certificate , Responden t a t P . 7 , "Statemen t

o f Uncontroverte dFacts, " accepte da s tru e eac h an dever y factua l allegatio n o f th e FA A i n thei r

Complain t

in that case . Tlierefore , contrary t o th e FAA position , ther e ca n b e n o i.'isu

e o f material fact

arisin g fro

mRespondent' s Answe r

to th e Complaint . Th e allegation. s supportin g th e allege dviolatio n o f 14CF R§ 135,2 1 (a ) an

d 14CF R§135,419(g ) were ple dagains t th e Repai r

Statio n a s i s clea

r fro mcomparingH' o allegation s o f

th e Amende dComplain t

agains t th e Repai r

Station .06/11/201 0 10:2 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 2)003/00 4

Wit h regardt o th e remainin g allegatio n o f 1 4 CF R§91.7 , operatin g a

n unairworth y airplane , th e FAA omitte da n essential fact

upo n whic h the y bear

th e proof , tha t movant ha dknowlcdc e o f

o r shoul dhav e know n th e aircraf t wa s unainvorthy . Swa n V . Hinson , 199 4 W

L 71986 3 (NTSB ) Decembe r 28 , 1994 , Unde r th e Rule s fo

r Summar y Judgment , onc e ther e ha s bee n sufficient tim e lo r discover y an dupo n motio n agains t apart y wh o fail s t o mak e ashowin g sufficient t o establis h th e existenc e o f

a n essential element

t o tha t party' s cas e on whic h th e part y wil l bea r th e Burde n o f truth , summar

y judgmen t

i s inandatedagains t

tha t parfy . Se t Celote x Corp , v. Catrett , Al l U.S . 317 , 32 1 (1986) . I n thi s instance , th e FA A mus t sho w by specifi c fact s that Ai r Eva c RMS , Inc. . kne w o r shoul dhav e know n tha

t th e aircraf t wat ; unairworthy . The y hav e no t eve n allege dsuc h fact s an dcertainl y hav e no t show n by specifi c fact s that Responden t

ha dsuc h knowledge . Sinc e the y hav e no t don e so , Responden t

i s entitle dto summar

y judgment . CONCLUSIO N Sinc e Responden t

ha s not , fo

r th e purpos e o f

it s Motion , denie dan y allegation s raisin g a n issu e o f fac t an dth e FAA faile dt

o make asufficient

showin g on th e existenc e o f

an essentia l elemen t

o f it s cas e upo n whic h th e FA A wil l bear th e burde n o f trut h a t trial , Responden t

i s entitle dt o dismissal o f th e Amende dComplain t

agains t it s Par t 13 5 operation s wit

h prejudice , an dn o trial on thi s matte r i.' i warranted .06/11/201 0 10:2 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A ^ DM S 004/00 4

Respectfull y submitted . COOLIN G & BERBER S

1 Wj6i4ai n ^ti^et . Suite 24 ^ ^isasCity , M O 6410 5 Telephone : (816)474-077 7 Facsimile : (816)472-079 0 jramsev(a)coolinKlaw.com . ATTORNEY S FO RRESPONDEN T AI REVA C EMS , INC . CERTIFICATE O F SERVIC E 1 hereb y certif

y tha t on th e 28" ' da

y o f May 2010, 1 forwarde don e (1 ) cop y o f th e foregoin g vi afa

x transmissio n an dUnite dState s regular mail , postag e prepai dto : Th e Honorabl e RichardC . Goodwi n Acfminisrrarive I -a

w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Depanniemo f

Tran.'iportatio n 1200 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E , Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mE12-32 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 0 lAX : 202-366-75-3 6 Federa l Aviatio aAdministratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , SW Wilbu r Wrigh t Building , Room201 4 AtrentJon ; Hearin g Decke l Clerk , AGC-43 0 Washingion , D.C . 20.^9 1 FAX : 202^93-514 2 Mar k G . Camach o Senio r Enforcemen t

Attorne y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o f Regiona l Coun,5e

l 90 1 Locust , Roo m50 6 Kansa s City , M O 64106-264 1 FAX : S16-.129-.377 1