264-14 

SAS 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

~=tECEIVED 

AUG 1 1 2015 

HEARING DOCKET 

IN THE MATTER OF: ) FAA CASE NO. 2014-GL-70-0239 

) 

COMPASS SYSTEMS & SALES, INC. 

Respondent 

) FDMS No. FAA-2015-2440 

) Judge: Pending Assignment 

) 

) ANSWER 

) 

NOW COMES the Respondent, Compass Systems & Sales, Inc. (hereinafter, 

"Respondent"), by and through legal counsel, and pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 13.209, for its Answer 

to the Complaint filed in this matter by the Complainant, the Federal Aviation AdministrationU.S. Department of Transportation (hereinafter, "Complainant"), states as follows: 

I 

Respondent admits the allegations contained in Count I of the Complaint. 

II 

1. Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Count II of the Complaint. 

Further answering, Respondent states that it did not knowingly and intentionally offer an 

undeclared hazardous materials shipment for transportation by air to United Parcel 

Service. Rather, the shipment in question was initially slated to ship by UPS Ground but 

was inadvertently changed at the last minute when the customer demanded overnight 

delivery. As soon as Respondent realized what had occurred, a request for the return of 

the package was made by Respondent to UPS. The shipment in question was never 

placed on an aircraft but, rather, was returned to Respondent at Respondent's request. 
2. Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Count II of the Complaint. 

Further answering, the waybill for the shipment in question contained a sender address of 

"Compass Systems and Sales Inc., 5185 New Haven Cir. NW, Barberton, OH 44203-

4672", and a "SHIP TO" address of "Guest: Kevin Miller, Holiday Inn Express, 2826 US 

41 North, Henderson, KY 42420". The shipment was intended for Respondent's 

customer, International Paper. 

3. Respondent denies, for lack of sufficient information, the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 3 of Count II of the Complaint. Further answering, Respondent states that it is 

not able to ascertain or confirm which UPS facility made the alleged discovery. 

Respondent states that Respondent did timely contact UPS' Wadsworth, Ohio sorting 

facility in efforts to stop the shipment and request the return of the shipment to 

Respondent. 

4. Respondent admits only that the shipment contained two, sixteen ounce aerosol cans of 

Master Blend Spray paint. The remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of Count 

II of the Complaint constitute a legal conclusion, to which no response is required. To 

the extent that a response is required, Respondent denies the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 4 of Count II of the Complaint. 

5. The allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of Count II of the Complaint constitute a legal 

conclusion, to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, 

Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of Count II of the Complaint. 

6. The allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of Count II of the Complaint constitute a legal 

conclusion, to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, 

Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of Count II of the Complaint. 
7. The allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of Count II of the Complaint constitute a legal 

conclusion, to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, 

Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of Count II of the Complaint. 

8. The allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of Count II of the Complaint constitute a legal 

conclusion, to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, 

Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of Count II of the Complaint. 

9. The allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Count II of the Complaint constitute a legal 

conclusion, to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, 

Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Count II of the Complaint. 

10. The allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of Count II of the Complaint constitute a legal 

conclusion, to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, 

Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of Count II of the 

Complaint. Further answering, Respondent states that the shipment was initially slated to 

ship by UPS Ground. 

II. The allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of Count II of the Complaint constitute a legal 

conclusion, to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, 

Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of Count II of the 

Complaint. 

12. Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of Count II of the 

Complaint. Further answering, Respondent states that it took immediate action to cancel 

the shipment and request return of the shipment from UPS. 

13. The allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of Count II of the Complaint constitute a legal 

conclusion, to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, 
Respondent denies the allegations contained m Paragraph 13 of Count II of the 

Complaint. 

III 

Each of the allegations contained in Paragraphs (a) through (g) of Count III of the 

Complaint constitutes a legal conclusion, to which no response is required. To the extent that a 

response is required, Respondent denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs (a) 

through (g) of Count III of the Complaint. 

IV 

1. The allegations contained in Paragraph I of Count IV of the Complaint constitute a legal 

conclusion, to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, 

Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Count IV of the 

Complaint. 

2. The allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Count IV of the Complaint constitute a legal 

conclusion, to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, 

Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Count IV of the 

Complaint. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

FIRST DEFENSE 

1. The Complaint fails to state a claim or cause of action against the Respondent upon 

which relief can be granted. 

SECOND DEFENSE 

2. Respondent asserts the affirmative defenses of laches, wmver, ratification and/or 

estoppel. 
THIRD DEFENSE 

3. Complainant was neither injured nor damaged to the extent claimed, if at all. 

FOURTH DEFENSE 

4. Respondent states that it did not knowingly and intentionally offer an undeclared 

hazardous materials shipment for transportation by air to United Parcel Service. 

FIFTH DEFENSE 

5. Respondent states that it took immediate action to cancel the shipment and request return 

of the shipment from UPS. 

SIXTH DEFENSE 

6. The shipment was never placed on an aircraft but, rather, was returned to Respondent at 

Respondent's request. 

SEVENTH DEFENSE 

7. Respondent reserves the right to raise additional defenses as discovery in this matter 

proceeds. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent prays that Complainant's Complaint be dismissed, with 

prejudice and that Respondent be awarded its costs and fees in this action. 

The Respondent, Compass Systems & Sales, Inc., respectfully requests that the hearing 

in this matter be held in Canton, Ohio, and expects that the hearing will last no longer than 

two days. 
Dated: August /(), 2015 

Respectfully submitted, 

Stuart A. Strasfeld, Esq. (Ohio #0012399) 

Roth, Blair, Roberts, Strasfeld & Lodge, L.P.A. 

100 East Federal Street, Suite 600 

Youngstown. Ohio 44503 

Telephone: (330) 744-5211 

Facsimile: (330) 744-3184 

Email: sstrasfeld@roth-b1air.com 

Attorney for Respondent, Compass Systems & Sales, 

Inc. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that, in accordance with 14 CFR 13.210, the original and one copy 

of the foregoing Answer were sent via Overnight Mail this /0 day of August, 2015, to the 

following address for filing with the Federal Aviation Administration: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 

Washington D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that, in accordance with 14 CFR 13.211, a true and accurate copy 

of the foregoing Answer was served upon the following via Overnight Mail this J rJ day of 

August, 2015. 

Brian K. Kahn, Esq. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

2300 East Devon Avenue, AGL-7H 

Des Plaines, IL 60018 

Attorney for Complainant, Federal Aviation Administration 

STUART A. STRASFELD (Ohio #0012399) 

Attorney for Respondent, Compass Systems & Sales, 

Inc. 

Date: August 2015