KAPLAN, MASSAMILLO 

### & ANDREWS, LLG

SUSAN cl RUSSELL srussell@kmalawfirm.com (3 I 2l 345-3029

VIA FEDERALEXPRESS 200 WEST MADISON STREET 16TH FLOOR CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 TELEPHONE (312) 345-3000

FACSIMILE (312) 345-3119 www.kmalawfirm.com
March 16, 2015

Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Attention: FAAPart 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 Federal AviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20591 Re: DOCKETNO. 16-14-08 WalkerAGSupply, etal. v. Wahoo MunicipalAirport, etal. Dear Office ofthe ChiefCounsel, NEW YORK OFFICE 70 EAST 55'" STREET 25 1 '' FLOOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022 T<::!..E:PHONE (212) 922-0450 FACSIMILE (212) 922-0530

Enclosed herewith for filing are four copies of the Respondents Wahoo Municipal Airport and Wahoo Airport Authority's Opposition to Complainants' Motion to Supplement Complainants' FAA Complaint, including the original copy unbound and three additional bound copies, and Certificate ofService.

SJR:kus Enclosures Very truly yours,

Susan J. RussellUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERALAVIATION ADMINSTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. WALKERAG SUPPLY, LLC, WALKER ) LUEDTKE, MIDWEST SPRAY SERVICE, LLC, ) BRAD GATE, BETTERAIRPORTS, LLC and ) WILLIAM FOSTER, ) Complainants,
vs. WAHOO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT and WAHOO AIRPORT AUTHORITY, Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FAADocketNo.16-14-08


# RECEIVED

MAR 17 2015 PART 16COCKETS

RESPONDENTS WAHOO MUNICIPALAIRPORTAND WAHOO AIRPORT AUTHORITY'S OPPOSITIONTO COMPLAINANTS' MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT COMPLAINANTS' FAA COMPLAINT COMES NOW the respondents WAHOO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ("WMA") and WAHOO AIRPORT AUTHORITY ("WAA") (collectively "Respondents"), by and through their attorneys, KAPLAN, MASSAMILLO & ANDREWS, LLC, and for their Oppositionto the complainants WALKER AG SUPPLY, LLC, WALKER LUEDTKE, MIDWEST SPRAY SERVICE, LLC, BRAD GATE, BETTER AIRPORTS, LLC and WILLIAM FOSTER (collectively "Complainants") latest Motion to Supplement their FAA Complaint, state as follows: I. INTRODUCTION Once again, Complainants seek to supplement their FAA Complaint with more unauthenticated, undated photographs that Complainants claim are from Google Earth Images. These images simply cannot represent what Complainants claim they do, namely evidence of Complainants' wild accusations regarding the number ofaircraft served by the airport or Storm 1Flying Services' actions allegedly in contravention of Respondents' Minimum Standards. Complainants have already filed a 900-plus page FAA Complaint and a 500-pluspageReply, but obviously believe that bothpleadings are inadequate and that they needto provide the FAA with
even more to review. For all ofthe reasons set forth below, Complainants' latest Motion to Supplement shouldbe stricken. II. COMPLAINANTS PRESENT NO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THEIRCLAIM Complainants seekto supplement their FAA Complaint with what they claim are "2014 Google Aerial Images," which they incorrectly claim provide evidence of: l) little or no aircraft activity at the Airport; 2) an ineffective "'Containment' ofchemicals, measures, and practice as required by the Minimum Standards" by Storm Flying Services; and 3) a Storm Flying Service Ford Fl50 Truck blocking a 'T" Tie-Down Aircraft space. The images that Complainants provide suffer from the same issues that all oftheir images have, namely authentication. Not
even Complainants know whenthe purported Google Images were taken. Mot. to Supplementp. 11. Complainants incorrectly claim that the photographs with some added markings are additional "evidence" of grant violations by Respondents. Their contention is patently absurd. There is no statement under oath regarding who took them, what they are of, when they were taken, or that the affiant has personal knowledge ofthe particular images being represented and
can attest that the image is indeed what Complainants claim it is. From these unsubstantiated photographs, Complainants once again draw a number of unsubstantiated opinions regarding Respondents' alleged violations of Grant Assurances. None of these opinions are facts that supporttheir allegations. 2Even if the images were authenticated, the photographs cannot, without more, be considered "evidence" supportive of Complainants' wild claims: i.e., that darkened areas on concrete are proofofchemical spills; that a still photograph is proofofno aircraft activity at the airport; or that a picture ofa vehicle is proofofa violation ofthe Minimum Standards. Forthese reasons, Complainants' Motionmustbe stricken. III. COMPLAINANTS' BASISFORTHE MOTIONIS UNTRUE Complainants claim that they are seeking to supplement their FAA Complaint with the 2014 Google Earth photographs now because "[t]hese Google Images were taken sometime priorto January I, 2015 and afterthe Google Aerials inthe initialFormal Complaint submission
on September 22, 2014." (Mot. to Supplementp. II) Complainants admit inthat statement that theyhave no ideawhenthe GoogleEarthphotographs allegedly ofthe airport were taken. They claim they are "newly available" 2014 photographs. Complainants do not state that these photographs were not available when they made their Reply in mid-December 2014, or their Motion to submit "correctedpages" to their Reply inJanuary 2015. Now, a good month-and-ahalf after all pleadings have been submitted, Complainants would like to submit even more unsubstantiatedphotographs from 2014. Respondents respectfully submit that Complainants have had adequate time-and have already submitted over 1400 pages ofrepetitive arguments, accusations and unauthenticated photographs to the FAA-and that their Motion at this time, which provides no additional useful information, shouldbe stricken. IV. CONCLUSION Notconfidentthattheir 1400 pages ofpleadings to date sufficientlyrepresenttheir claim, Complainants' latest effort to supplement their pleading must be denied. The absurdity of 3Complainants' latestbarrage ofaccusations cannotbe understated. Undated, unauthenticated still photographs are not evidence of"no aircraft activity." Undated, unauthenticatedphotographs of dark spots on concrete are not evidence of chemical wash runoff. And, finally, undated, unauthenticated photographs of a parked truck are not evidence of a violation of the Respondents' Minimum Standards. Even ifthe photographs could be authenticated, they still cannot stand for the wildpropositions Complainants have made. Complainants' accusations once again are long on speculation, innuendo and insult, but very short on proof. Moreover, Complainants' Motion is also untimely. For all of the foregoing reasons, Respondents respectfully request that the FAA strike Complainants' latest Motion to supplement their FAA Complaint. WHEREFORE, Respondents WAHOO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT and WAHOO AIRPORT AUTHORITY (collectively "Respondents") respectfully request that Complainants WALKER AG SUPPLY, LLC, WALKER LUEDTKE, MIDWEST SPRAY SERVICE, LLC, BRAD GATE, BETTER AIRPORTS, LLC and WILLIAM FOSTER Motion to Supplement Their Complaint be stricken and for all other reliefthe U.S. Federal Aviation Authority deems just.

4Dated: March 16, 2015 Respectfully submitted, 

# (**~~~~~i~=~ ~~~j**  /

# "0( Larry S. Kaplan, 

## Esq:""- Keith S. Yamaguchi, Esq. SusanJ. Russell, Esq. KAPLAN, MASSAMILLO & ANDREWS, LLC 200 W. Madison Street, 161hFloor Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 335-3000 FirmI.D. No. 42047 Attorneys for Respondents Wahoo Municipal Airportand Wahoo AirportAuthority

5