264-14 SAS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

# ~=tECEIVED AUG 112015 

## HEARING DOCKET INTHEMATTER OF: ) FAA CASE NO. 2014-GL-70-0239 ) COMPASS SYSTEMS & SALES, INC. Respondent ) FDMS No. FAA-2015-2440 ) Judge: PendingAssignment ) ) 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. DepartmentofTransportation (hereinafter, "Complainant"), states as follows: I Respondent admits the allegations containedin Count I ofthe Complaint. II 1. Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 ofCount II ofthe 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 byUPS 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 onan aircraftbut, rather, was returned to Respondent at Respondent'srequest.2. Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 ofCount II ofthe 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 ofCount II ofthe Complaint. Further answering, Respondent states that itis 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 ofCount II ofthe Complaint constitute a legal conclusion, to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Respondent denies the remaining allegations containedin Paragraph 4 ofCount II ofthe Complaint. 5. The allegations contained in Paragraph 5 ofCount II ofthe Complaint constitute a legal conclusion, to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Respondent denies the allegations contained inParagraph 5 ofCountII ofthe Complaint. 6. The allegations contained in Paragraph 6 ofCount II ofthe Complaint constitute a legal conclusion, to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Respondent denies the allegations contained inParagraph 6 ofCountII ofthe Complaint.7. The allegations contained in Paragraph 7 ofCount II ofthe Complaint constitute a legal conclusion, to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Respondent denies the allegations contained inParagraph 7 ofCount II ofthe Complaint. 8. The allegations contained in Paragraph 8 ofCount II ofthe Complaint constitute a legal conclusion, to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Respondent denies the allegations contained inParagraph 8 ofCount II ofthe Complaint. 9. The allegations contained inParagraph 9 ofCount II ofthe 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 ofCount II ofthe Complaint. 10. The allegations contained in Paragraph 10 ofCount II ofthe 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 slatedto ship by UPS Ground. II. The allegations contained in Paragraph 11 ofCount II ofthe 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 andrequest return ofthe shipment from UPS. 13. The allegations contained in Paragraph 13 ofCount II ofthe 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) ofCountIII ofthe Complaint. IV 1. The allegations contained in Paragraph I ofCount IV ofthe 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 inParagraph 2 ofCount IV ofthe 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 FIRSTDEFENSE 1. The Complaint fails to state a claim or cause of action against the Respondent upon which reliefcanbe granted. SECOND DEFENSE 2. Respondent asserts the affirmative defenses of laches, wmver, ratification and/or estoppel.THIRDDEFENSE 3. Complainantwasneither injurednordamaged to the extentclaimed, ifat all. FOURTHDEFENSE 4. Respondent states that it did not knowingly and intentionally offer an undeclared hazardous materials shipmentfor transportation by airtoUnitedParcel Service. FIFTHDEFENSE 5. Respondent states that ittook immediate action to cancel the shipment and request return ofthe shipmentfrom UPS. SIXTH DEFENSE 6. The shipment was never placed on an aircraft but, rather, was returned to Respondent at Respondent'srequest. SEVENTHDEFENSE 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 matterbeheld in Canton, Ohio, and expects thatthe hearingwilllastno longer than two days.Dated: August /(), 2015 Respectfully submitted,

StuartA. Strasfeld, Esq. (Ohio #0012399) Roth, Blair, Roberts, Strasfeld & Lodge, L.P.A. 100 EastFederal 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 ofthe foregoing Answer were sent via Overnight Mail this 

# /0 day ofAugust, 2015, to the following address for filing withthe Federal AviationAdministration: FederalAviationAdministration 600 IndependenceAvenue, S.W. WilburWrightBuilding- Suite2Wl000 Washington D.C. 20591 Attention: HearingDocket Clerk,AGC-430

I HEREBY CERTIFY that, in accordance with 14 CFR 13.211, a true and accurate copy ofthe foregoing Answer was served upon the following via Overnight Mail this 

# J rJ day of August, 2015.

Brian K. Kahn,Esq. FederalAviation Administration Office ofRegional Counsel 2300 EastDevon Avenue, AGL-7H Des Plaines,IL 60018 Attorney for Complainant, FederalAviationAdministration

STUART A. STRASFELD (Ohio #0012399) Attorney for Respondent, Compass Systems & Sales, Inc.

Date: August 2015