### 2 t PARTMEN T O F SERVE D AUGUS T 24 , 201 0 . "^t f OTP^TO ? mAU G ? U P 3 : 5 1 UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . Applicatio n o f GAR Y J . LE E FA A DOCKE T NO . CP10SW0008 , successo r t o CP05SW001 3 DM S No . FAA-2010-0536, successo r t o FAA-2005-2208

4 (Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Action ) INITIA L DECISIO N DENYIN G APPLICATIO N FO R ATTORNEY' S FEE S

AN D OTHE R EXPENSE S 

### Backgroun d Thi s applicatio n unde r

th e Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Act, 5 U.S.C . §504 , originate di n aproceedin g i n whic h th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ("FAA " o r "th e agency ) charge dGar y J. Le e ("Gar y Lee " o r "Applicant" ) wit

h aviolatio n o

f §121.58 0 o

f th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s ("FARs") , 1 4 C.F.R . §121.580 . Th e charg e stemme dfromaSouthwes t Airline s flight

o f Februar y 23 , 2005 , o n whic h Mr . Le e an dhi s brother , Sgt . Michael P . Lee ("Michael Lee") , wer e passengers . Th e Lee s sa t together . I

n aseparat e actio n th e agenc y als o charge dMichael Lee wit h a §121.58 0 violatio n (Docke t No . CP05SW0012 , DM

S No . FAA-2005-22082) . Th e agenc y allege din eac h matte r tha t th e responden t

ha dinterfere dwith a crewmembe r

i n th e performanc e o

f th e crewmember' s duties. ' Th e agenc y sough t a civi l penalt y o

f $1,10 0 agains t

each . Th e case s wer e consolidated . Followin g a n ora l evidentiar y hearing , I issue da n Initia l Decisio n (I.D. ) i n whic h I foun dtha t

Michael Lee violate d§121.580 . I assesse dacivil penalt y o f $40 0 agains t him . I als o foun dth e agenc y ha dno t prove n tha t

Gar y Lee , th e Applican t here , committe da§121.58 0 violation . I dismisse dth e Complain t agains t hi m {Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n v. fvficliae l P . Le e an dGar

y J . Lee , FA

A Docket Nos . CP05SW001 2 an dCP05SW0013 , Initial Decisio n o f Administrativ e La

w Judg e RichardC . Goodwin , serve dJul

y 31 , 2006) . Neithe r

part y appealed . Th e case s becam e administrativel y final.

' Section 121.58 0 states : "N o perso n ma y assault , threaten , intimidate , o r interfer e wit h acrewmembe

r i n th e performanc e of

th e crewmember' s dutie s aboar da n aircraf t bein g operatedunde

r thi s part. "Gar y Le e file da n applicatio n fo

r attorney' s fee s an dothe r expense s unde r

th e Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Ac

t ("EAJA" o r

"th e Act") , 5 U.S.C . §504 , an dimplementin g regulation s 1 4 C.F.R

. Part 14 . Th e agenc y answere din opposition . For th e reason s se t fort h below , I den y th e application . 

### Standard s Th e EAJ A require s a n agenc y conductin g a n "adversary adjudication " t o awar dfee s an dothe r

expense s t o aprevailin g part y (othe r tha n th e Unite dStates ) unles s th e positio n o

f th e agenc y wa s "substantiall y justified " o r special circumstance s make an awar dunjus t ( 5 U.S.C . §504(a)(l)) . Th e FAA' s rule s implementin g th e statut e essentiall y trac k it s languag e (^ee§14.04) . Th e burde n o f proo f tha t a n awar dshoul dno t

b e mad e rest s with th e agency . 1 4 CFR'§14,04(a) . I t i s no t dispute dtha t

th e underlyin g civil-penalty matte r constitute da n adversar y adjudicatio n in whic h th e Applican t prevailed . Nor

doe s th e agenc y asser t tha t "special circumstances " ough t t o foreclos e afee award . Th e partie s diffe r o n whethe r

th e agenc y wa s "substantiall y justified " i n bringin g an d maintainin g th e action . A n actio n i s substantiall y justifie dwhe n i t ha s areasonabl e basi s in la w an d fact . Pierc e v. Underwood , 48 7 U.S . 552,56 5 (1988) ; 1 4 CF R14.04(a) ; McAae / Edwar dWendt , FA

A Orde r 93- 9 (Marc h 25,1993) , p . 3 . Th e charge s mus t b e justifie dt o th e degre e tha t coul dsatisf

y areasonabl e person . Th e standar di s me t i f ther e i s a"genuin e dispute, " o r i f reasonabl e peopl e coul ddiffe r a s t o th e appropriatenes s o

f th e conteste daction . Pierc e v . Underwood , p . 565 . Th e agenc y mus t sho w (a ) areasonabl e basi s i n trut h fo r th e fact s alleged ; (b ) areasonabl e basi s in la w fo

r th e lega l theor y propounded ; an d(3 ) areasonabl e connectio n betwee n fact s an dtheory . Valle y Ai r Services , Inc. , FA

A Orde r No . 95-2 7 (Decembe r 19,1995) , p . 6 , pet . forreconsid . denied , FA A Orde r No . 96-1 5 (Ma

y 3,1996) ; Smit

h V . Nationa l Transportatio n Safety Board , 99 2 F.2d849,85 2 (8 * Cir . 1993) . Failur e t o prevai l doe s no t rais e apresumptio n o

f lack o f substantia l justification . I t

mus t no t b e assume dtha t

th e government' s positio n wa s no t substantiall y justifie dsimpl y becaus e i t los t o n th e merits . Morga

n v. Perry , 14 2 F.3 d670,68 5 (3'-

dCir . 1998) ; Ba y Are aPeac e Nav y v. Unite dStates , 91 4 F.2d1224 , 123 1 n . 4 (9 * Cir . 1990) ; Michae l Edwar dWendt , FA A Orde r 93- 9 (Marc h 25,1993) , p . 3 . Th e agenc y nee dno t demonstrat e tha t

i t ha dasubstantia l likelihoo do f prevailin g t o prov e tha t

it s litigatio n positio n wa s substantiall y justified . Kiareldee n V . Ashcroft , 27 3 F.3 d542.55 4 (3'- dCir . 2001) ; Michae l Edwar dWendt , FA A Orde r 93-9 . Th e determinatio n o f "substantia l justification " encompasse s arevie w o f th e entir e proceeding . Whethe r "substantia l justification " ha s bee n show n wil l b e decide d"o n th e basi s o

f th e administrativ e record , a s awhole , whic h i s mad e i n th eadversar y adjudicatio n ... " 5 U.S.C . §504(a ) (1) . Th e government' s positio n consist s

no t onl y o f th e complain t

bu t als o o f it s postur e asserte di n supportin g th e complaint' s allegation s durin g th e pendenc y o f th e proceeding . Krecioc h v . Unite d States , 31 6 F.3 d684 , 68 9 (7 * Cir . 2002) . "Substantia l justification " connote s a n active , searchin g inquiry int o th e qualit y o f evidenc e advance dan dth e overal l . ^ reasonablenes s o

f th e agency' s position . Unite dBrotherhoo do f Carpenter s an d Joiner s v . NLRB , 89 1 F.2d1160,116 3 (5 * Cir . 1990) . Findine s an dConclusion s 1 find an dconclud e tha t

th e agency' s positio n in th e underlyin g matte r wa s substantiall y justified . It s positio n wa s reasonabl y base dboth i n law an dfact . Th e fact s adduce dwer e reasonabl y connecte dt o th e violatio n charged . I wil l den y th e Applicant' s application . M y conclusio n tha t

th e agency' s positio n wa s substantiall y justifie drest s o n th e ide atha t

reasonabl e peopl e coul ddiffe r i n thei r conclusion s draw n fromth e salien t facts . Althoug h th e Initial Decisio n ultimatel y determine dotherwise , I conclud e tha t

th e fact s reasonabl y coul dsuppor t adeterminatio n tha t

Gar y Lee violate d1 4 C.F.R

. §121.580 . Th e agency' s cas e i n th e underlyin g matte r reste do n it s contentio n tha t th e Applicant' s behavio r

interfere dwith th e dutie s o f th e flight attendant s sufficientl y t o mak e ou t aviolatio n o

f §121.580 . I

n support , th e agenc y introduce dint o evidenc e a numbe r o f facts . It showe dtha t

th e Applican t

converse dloudl y an dpeppere dhi s speec h with profanity . Hi s tal k le dt o complaint s fro

mothe r passenger s - despit e sittin g severa l row s bac k

fromall bu t

on e othe r

passenge r

(othe r tha n Michael Lee )

~ an dwarrante da t

leas t thre e visit s fromon e o

f th e flight attendants . Thi s attendan t ha drepeatedl y aske dth e Applican t an dhi s brothe r

t o ton e dow n thei r conversatio n an dt o refrai n fro mcursing , onl y t o hav e th e conversatio n soo n rever t t o it s objectionabl e natur e (Initia l Decisio n o f Administrativ e La

w Judg e RichardC

. Goodwi n ("I.D.") , p . 2) . Th e brothers ' tal k i n fac t becam e increasingl y hostil e (I.D. , p . 4) . Frustrate dwith th e brothers ' non-complianc e an duncomfortabl e wit h th e situatio n a s awhole , thi s attendan t consulte dth e othe r

tw o flight

attendants . Th e captai n als o wa s consulted . On e o f th e othe r attendant s issue dafurthe r warnin g t o Applican t (an dhi s brother ) t o compl y with cre w instructions . Th e thir dflight attendan t spok e t o the ma s wel l (I.D. , p . 3-4) . Accordin g t o on e o f th e flight attendants , th e cre w wa s "consumedwit h handlin g th e tw o o f them " ( 1 Tr . 148 ; I.D. , p . 4 (emphasi s supplied)) . Th e FA A contende dtha t

Gar y Lee' s conduc t

distracte dth e flight

attendant s fro mthei r primar y dut y o

f securin g an dmaintainin g acalm , safe , an dorderl y environmen t

aboar dth e aircraf

t sufficient t o find a§121.58 0 violation . I n suppor t o f thi s conclusion , testimon y suggeste dtha t th e Lees ' intensifyin g loudnes s an d hostility , ove r

aflight lastin g fou

r hours , coul dhav e raise dasignifican t safet y threat .Th e cre w coul dno t confidentl y predic t

tha t th e Applicant' s troublesom e conduc t woul dno t continu e t o escalate . The y wer e unwillin g t o accep t aris k o f tha t magnitud e t o th e critical nee dt o retai n contro l o f th e aircraft . La

w an dorde r

i n a n enclose dcapsul e hurtlin g forwar da t 30,00 0 fee t

mus t b e maintained , s o eve n a relativel y smal l ris k

ma y no t b e tolerated . Th e Applicant' s cursin g i n itsel f raise d th e possibility o

f aviolation . Profanit

y alon e ca

n creat e aclimat e o

f apprehensio n aboar daircraf

t sufficient t o find a§121.58 0 violatio n (I.D. , p . 4) . Th e fact s showe dtha t

th e Applicant' s behavio r

distracte dth e crew . Testimon y suggeste dtha t i t in fac t "consumed " them . Al

l thre e flight

attendant s directl y addresse dth e Applicant' s conduct , an dth e captai n wa s consulte dabou t it . The Applicant' s lou dtal k

an dcursin g appeare dt o escalate , despit e repeate d instruction s t o stop . H

e helpe dcreat e asens e o

f apprehensio n amon g th e crew . Thi s evidenc e coul dwel l mak e ou t acas e o f interferenc e with th e flight cre w vfolatin g §121.580. ^ Whethe r Gar y Lee' s interferenc e wa s consequentia l enoug h t o constitut e a violatio n i s amatte r

o f alittl e more , o r

alittl e less . Passenge r

interferenc e case s ca n wal k afactua l fine line , abou t

whic h reasonabl e peopl e ca n differ . Th e agenc y i s entitle dt o "err " o n th e sid e o f bringin g clos e case s t o tria l t o fulfil l it s mandat e o

f enforcin g an densurin g ai r safety . Agains t

thi s background , I conclud e tha t th e agenc y wa s substantiall y justifie din bringin g an dmaintainin g th e underlyin g action . Th e FA A me t it s burde n o

f demonstratin g tha t

i t ha dsubstantia l justificatio n unde r th e Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Ac

t t o brin g an dt o maintai n th e underlyin g civil

penalt y proceedin g agains t Gar y Lee . Fo r th e reason s stated , I den y Gar y Lee' s application. '

KichardCUoodwMrv!~ j Administrativ e La

w Judg e Attachmen t - Servic e Lis t

^ A fligh t attendan t als o couldb e intimidatedi

n violatio n o f

§121.58 0 by apassenge

r addressin g her

i n a "loud , angry " voice . Evgeni y V . Ignatov , FA

A Orde r No . 96- 6 (Februar

y 13 , 1996) . Se e n . 1 , p . 1 . ^ Thi s decision become s final 3 0 day s afte r its issuanc e unles s apart

y appeal s o

r th e FA A Decisionmake

r take s revie w unde r hi s o r he r ow n initiative . 1 4 CF

R§ 14.28(a) . Th

e appea l must b e eithe r (a) mailedt o th e Federa l Aviation Administration , 800 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Washington , D.C . 20591 , Attention : Hearing Docke

t Clerk , AGC-430 , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building - Suit

e 2W1000 ; o

r (b ) delivered personall y o r vi aexpedite dcourie

r servic e t o th e Federa

l Aviation Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building - Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D.C . 20591 , Attention : Hearing Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 . f^4FA A Docke t No . CP10SW000 8 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) CORREC T SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L & ON E COP Y Hearin g Docke t Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Att : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Roo m2014 *

ON E COP Y Alexande r

Anolik , Esq . 210 7 Van Nes s Ave. , Suit e 20 0 Sa n Francisco , C A 94109-257 2 TEL : (415)673-333 3 FAX : (415 ) 673-354 8 Stellamari s Williams , Esq . Safet y Enforcemen t

Branc h Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counse l Southwes t

Region , ASW- 7 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 260 1 Meacha mBlvd. , 6 E Fort Worth , T X 76137-000 7 TEL : (817)222-508 1 FAX : (817)222-509 2 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwi n Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 Roo m541 1 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 40 0 Seventh Street , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attomey-Adviso r

(202 ) 366-2139 ; Lega l Assistan t 6-512 1 FAX : (202)366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n perso n o r b y expedite dcourier , us e th e followin g address : Hearin g Docket , Federa l Aviatio n Administration, 60

0 Independenc

e Avenue, S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Buildin g - Roo m 2014 , Washington

, D C 20591 , Att : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 .