In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: August 25, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0116 

JOSEPH MARIDON, SR. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Respondent ) 

Case No. 2012WP190142 

ORDER CANCELLING THE PRE-HEARING STATUS 

CONFERENCE AND DIRECTING THE PARTIES 

TO FILE SHOW CAUSE STATEMENTS 

On June 29, 2016, an Order Setting a Pre-Hearing Status Conference and a Deadline for 

the Parties to File a Case Status Report was filed. Among other things, this June 29, 2016 Order 

directed the parties to engage in a Status Conference on or before July 29, 2016 to discuss the 

multiple issues in this pending case, and file a joint Status Report about those issues on or before 

August 12, 2016. (June 29, 2016 Order, 1-2 §§ A-C, 3111-2.) In the alternative, the parties 

could each file a unilateral Status Report. (Id. , 2.) After filing the Status Report, the parties were 

to convene for a Pre-Hearing Status Conference with the Court on Wednesday, August 31, 2016, 

at 1 :30 p.m. Eastern time, to discuss the content of the Status Report and what further 

adjudication needed to be scheduled. (Id. at 4, 5.) 

On August 12, 2016, the FAA and the Respondent, Joseph Maridon, Sr., failed to file a 

joint Status Report. In addition, neith~rllhe1

F NA··nb}-'the Respondent's co-counsel filed a 

unilateral Status Report. Neither party moved for an extension of the court-ordered deadlines. 

On August 18, 2016, the Respondent filed with the undersigned copies of the following 

Respondent documents: 1) May 28, 2014 Motion to Dismiss; 2) June 28, 2014 Respondent Reply 

to FAA's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and Request to Find Opposition Timely Filed; 3) 

October 30, 2014 Respondent's Opposition to Complainants Motion for Partial Decision 

(Summary Judgment); and, 4) January 7, 2015 Respondent's Second Motion to Dismiss for 

Violation of Respondents Rights Under the United States Constitution (Erratta) - With Exhibits). 
In the Respondent's attached Certificate of Service, the Respondent certified that these 

documents had also been filed with the FAA Hearing Docket. 

As of today's date, neither the FAA nor the Respondent has filed a Case Status Report or 

offered any explanation for why they h~yetyf?4i~dfi ~pmply with the Court's June 29, 2016 

Order. 

A. Brief Discussion 

The Court "speaks through the language of its orders." 56 Am. Jur. 2d Motions, Rules, 

and Orders§ 42 (2013). In its orders, the Court may "grant or deny specified relief' regarding a 

disputed matter, and/or "direct a party to take or to refrain from taking action." Id A Court's 

order is a "mandatory directive for parties to comply with its dictates." Id. Thus, if the Court 

directs a party to take action, the party must do so, in the manner specified by the Court. Id. The 

Court's order must be obeyed "until it is reversed, modified, or set aside." Id. § 55. 

As noted in the.June 29, 2016 Order, this case was reassigned to the undersigned on 

March 21, 2016. 1 Shortly thereafter, this Court notified the parties that multiple motions they 

had served each other, prior to the case being .reassigned, were missing from the official hearing · r i}, ·· ;!. J.f:l.tf~l ·,;,;:}. ('.i 

record. (June 29, 2016 Order, 1-2.) l{ursuant fo lifC'.F.R. §§ 13.205, 13.217, and 13.221, this 

Court directed the parties to perfect the official record, meet informally to discuss the status of 

the case, and then prepare and file a Case Status Report based on that meeting. The content of 

this Case Status Report, due on or before August 12, 2016, was to include (but was not limited 

to) a report on the status of the parties' pending motions and discovery, the parties' preferred 

calendar availability for hearing, and any other matters the parties wished to address with the 

Court regarding the status of the case litigation. (Id. at 1-4.) 

However, as noted above, neither the FAA nor the Respondent filed a Case Status 

Report, nor did either party contact the Court to request an extension of the court's deadline. 

It is deeply troubling to this Court that the three attorney representatives in this case have 

failed to comply with the directives contained in the Court's June 29, 2016 Order. This noni ,!·· '. .. t.1rt,.+c''.~r:;; 

I Reassignment occurred after the previously as.signed j~\i~d p~~anently left the Office of Hearings. 

Page 2 of 6 
responsiveness, on its face, is contrary to the express expectations of the FAA Administrator, the 

the aviation community, and the public that these cases be adjudicated "expeditiously."2 Such 

non-responsiveness also appears to violate the fundamental responsibilities of a lawyer, who 

must not only serve his client as a representative, but also act as "an officer of the legal system 

and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice." Model Rules of 

Prof 1 Conduct, Preamble ,r 1 (Am. Bar Ass'n 1983). 

As explained in detail in the Model Rules' Preamble, and in the Model Rules themselves, 

a lawyer's responsibility is not limited to tb.~ role ofan advocate. A lawyer also serves as an i. {{\. • : . ,~t i~i./ ·: -~;~ "i· \ ; 

"officer of the court" and as "a public citizen· with: special responsibility for the quality of 

justice." Id. Among other things, this means that a lawyer has an obligation to respond promptly 

and competently to court orders, as part of the lawyer's responsibility to uphold the rule of law 

and the legal system. This helps preserve not only our system of justice, but also the public's 

confidence in the court's authority and decision-making process. 

Every lawyer is responsible for observance of the Rules of Professional Conduct. 

A lawyer should also aid in securing their observance by other lawyers. Neglect 

of these responsibilities compromise the independence of the profession and the 

public interest which it serves. 

Id. ,r 12. 

Thus, not only should a lawyer be "competent, prompt, and diligent" in all "professional 

functions" Id. ,r 4, but a lawyer should also demonstrate "respect for the legal system and for 

those who serve it, including judges."/~. ,r_;:s.- t 1 -~· 

.. ·i ( i;\1~ ':P 

It should further be noted that as part of our unique legal system, the court has inherent 

authority to enforce its own orders and compel compliance with them. 56 Am Jur 2d Motions, 

Rules, and Orders§ 57 (2013). 

2 When the FAA's Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R. Part 13, Subpart G ("FAA Rules"), for civil penalty adjudication 

were adopted, the FAA Administrator recognized the public's need for "swift" FAA prosecution of cases. 55 Fed. 

Reg. 27549 (July 3, 1990) (Discussion of Final Rule). The FAA Administrator also assured the aviation community 

and the public that it was the FAA's goal to ensure "a fair adjudication" that would be conducted "expeditiously." 

Id .. 

Page 3 of 6 

.. ·( 
Courts of justice are universally acknowledged to be vested, by their very creation, with 

power to impose silence, respe~t, and decorum, in their presence, and submission to their 

lawful mandates. · ·. , · 

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991). 

This universal power allows the court to "manage its own affairs" in order to achieve the 

"orderly and expeditious disposition of cases." Federal Procedure L. Ed.,§ 62.796-798 (2014); 

Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-631 (1962)(the court has power to control 

proceedings.) 

It is generally recognized that a trial court has inherent power or authority to control or 

manage its trial calendar, or its docket, or the disposition of cases on its docket. A trial 

court has inherent power to take whatever reasonable actions are necessary to maintain 

control of its docket and may exercise its inherent power to ensure that it functions 

efficiently and effectively to provide the fair administration of justice and to control its 

docket with economy of time and effort. A trial court has a duty to maintain control of 

the docket and to ensure the efficient disposal of the court's business, including the duty 

to require the parties to ·prosecute their suits with diligence. The trial coutt has the 

inherent power to manage the judidial ·aff airk1

that arise during the proceedings in its 

courts and the inherent powei: to: controli~ne proceedings in its court. It is vested with the 

authority to manage its affairs in order to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition 

of the cases. 

The management of a trial calendar is among the most difficult of all judicial 

assignments, and, consequently, the widest discretion must be given to ... [ the court] ... in 

carrying out this enormously difficult function. 

75 Am. Jur. 2d Trial§ 21 (2016)(citations omitted) 

This power of the trial court to control its docket is also codified in the FAA's Rules of 

Practice, which specifically provides discretionary authority for the court to "regulate the course 

of the hearing." 14 C.F.R. § 13.205(a)(6); See e.g., 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.218(f)(l) ("Motion to 

dismiss for insufficiency"), and 75 A Am. Jur. 2d Trial§ 782 (2016)(the very essence of a 

court's inherent power to justly administer the proceedings is demonstrated when the court 

dismisses an action for lack of legal sufficiency). 

In the instant case, all three attomeyrneprclseiJttatives failed to comply with the June 29, 

2016 Order. The parties have failed to confirm that the official hearing record has been perfected 

with their pre-hearing motions. The parties have failed to provide information regarding the 

status their pending motions and their discovery process. The parties have failed to indicate 

Page 4 of 6 
whether they are ready for hearing, and if so, how long such a hearing is anticipated. The parties 

have also failed to indicate any preferred calendar availability for hearing, or whether there are 

any other litigation matters that needed to be addressed (e.g., request for oral argument on 

motions, a proffer of stipulations to narrow hearing issues, etc.). As the record currently stands, 

the parties have also not explained why they..have failed to comply with the Court's June 29, 

2016 Order. 

Thus, the record of silence in this action strongly indicates that the case may have been 

settled, or alternatively, one of the parties may have abandoned this case in its entirety. As a 

result, it is both a premature act, and a misuse of limited judicial resources, for this Court to hold 

a Conference with the parties. 

Based on the case record, and to preserve limited judicial resources, the parties should be 

offered an opportunity to file a written Show Cause Statement, not only to explain why they 

failed to comply with the Court's June 29, 2016 Order, but also to affirm an interest and 

willingness to participate in prosecuting or defending the action. Thus, as part of this written 

Show Cause Statement, a party interested in proceeding further shall file both a timely Case 

Status Report as well as a confirmation that it wishes to proceed and participate in the action as 

directed by this Court. , , . .1.,, iJic 

In the alternative, if either the FAA or the Respondent fails to file a written Show Cause 

Statement as directed herein, and continues in its silence and non-responsiveness in the action, 

such silence and non-responsiveness may be deemed-without further notice to either party-to 

be an abandonment or withdrawal of the prosecution or defense of the case, and may result in an 

order of dismissal. 14 C.F.R. § 13.215; See also, 2 Lane GoldsteinTrial Technique,§§ 8:9-8:10 

(3d ed. 2016). K 

B. Conclusion 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.205 and 14 C.F.R. § 13.221, and after having reviewed all 

relevant caselaw, regulation, statutory authority and other guidance, and being fully advised; 

\':,:1 

Page 5 of 6 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The Pre-Hearing Status Conference currently set for Wednesday, August 31, 2016, at 

1 :30 p.m. Eastern time, is cancelled. 

2. September 30, 2016: Show Cause Statement Deadline: On or before September 30, 

2016, the FAA and the Respondent shall each file a written Show Cause Statement. This 

Show Cause Statement should provide an explanation as to why the party failed to 

comply with the Court's June 29, 2016 Order. It shall also include the following: 

a. a Case Status Report that fully addresses the matters and concerns identified in 

both the June 29, 2016 Ord~! aJ?d this1

. Order; 

b. a confirmation that the party wishes to proceed with litigation and will participate 

as directed by this Court. 

3. Failure of either the FAA or the Respondent to file a timely written Show Cause 

Statement on or before September 30, 2016, as directed herein, may be deemed-without 

further notice to either party-to be an abandonment or withdrawal of the prosecution or 

defense of the case, and may result in an order of dismissal without further notice to the 

parties. 

4. The deadlines provided in this order, as well as any other deadline date this Court may set 

in the future, is the date that the documents are date-stamped received at the Office of 

Hearings. Parties are encouraged to fax or express deliver a Judge's working copy of 

their materials to the Office of Hearings to ensure compliance with court-ordered 

deadlines. 

5. For clarifications of this order or ques_tionswith regard to the procedures to be followed 

in this case, please contact Mr. Cody L. Smith, Attorney-Advisor, at the Office of 

Hearings (202-366-6941 ). 

Attachments: Service List 

Page 6 of 6 
Docket No. FAA-2014-0116 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-., Su~te 2WJi0,001 

Mr. David F. Shayne 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, WA 98057 

TEL: 425-227-2165 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

Mr. Joseph R. Maridon, Jr. 

Respondent's Co-Counsel 

Attorney at Law 

6130 Elton Ave 

Las Vegas, NV 89107 

I 

ONE COPY 

Joseph Maridon, Sr 

Respondent 

9212 E. Frederick Ave 

Spokane, WA 99206-4303 

Mr. Walter L. Ayers 

Respondent's Co-Counsel 

Attorney at Law 

1312 N. Monroe St., Suite 133 

Spokane, WA 99201 

TEL: 509-252-6005/509-863-l 432 

, 1 ,',,Il,.t,.. / ! \: 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (El 1-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the fol1owing address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.