In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: May 20,2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

WILLIAM A. CURTRIGHT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2014NM090046 

Respondent 

ORDER DENYING THE RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 

AND GRANTING/DENYING OTHER RELIEF 

On August 5, 2015, the prose Respondent, Mr. William A. Curtright, filed a Response to 

the Complaint ("Answer"). Included in this Answer was an untitled Motion to deem the case 

resolved, and to dismiss the proposed civil penalty of $11,000 ("Untitled Motion"). 

On November 19, 2015, an Order Setting Deadlines for the FAA to File a Response, the 

Respondent to File a Reply, and Reserving Other Relief was filed. 

On December 4, 2015, the FAA filed the Complainant's Response to the ALJ's Order of 

November 19, 2015 ("Response to Show Cause"). 1 This Response to Show Cause did not object 

to, or respond to the Respondent's August 5, 2015 Untitled Motion. 

On January 6, 2016, the Respondent filed his Reply to Complainant's Response to the 

AU's Order ofNovember 19, 2015 ("Reply"). Included on page three (3) of this Reply was a 

renewed, untitled Motion to deem the case resolved and to dismiss the proposed civil penalty of 

$11,000 ("Renewed Untitled Motion"). The FAA did not file any Response to this Untitled 

Renewed Motion. 

1 The FAA was invited by the Court to file a Response to the arguments made by the Respondent in his Show Cause 

Statement. (Nov. 19,2015 Order, 2 ~ 1.) The erroneous titles in both the FAA's and Respondent's filings after 

receipt of the November 19, 2015 Order have already been addressed in the May 18, 2016 Order Finding Good 

Cause for the Respondent's Untimely Answer, Denying the FAA's Renewed Motion, and Granting/Denying Other 

Relief. (May 18, 2016 Order, 2 fns. 2, 3, and 4, and 3 fn. 5.) 
On January 19, 2016, the Respondent filed a titled Motion to Dismiss ("Motion"). 

As oftoday's date, the FAA has not filed any Response to the Motion. 

A. Proper Motion Practice- Fair and Clear Notice of Request 

In general, a motion is "a request to the court, usually submitted in writing, that seeks an 

order." Steven Baicker-McKee, et al., Federal Civil Rules Handbook, 348 (West Publishing 

20 16). It is well-established that written motions must comply with certain "fair notice" 

requirements, both in title and content. (!d. at 409.) See also, Fed. Rs. Civ. P. 7(b) and 10. This 

includes identifying the motion(s) in the title of the document, and then setting forth "each 

distinct allegation" supporting each motion request in a separately numbered paragraph. (!d. at 

405-409.) The purpose ofthese requirements is to give fair notice of the movant's request(s) to 

both the Court and the opposing party. This ensures that the request(s) are easily understood, 

and may be properly addressed. (!d.) When a party fails to comply with fair and clear notice 

pleading (e.g., imbedding an untitled request in a document, "grouping" multiple requests under 

a single motion title, etc.), such failure may result in the flawed pleading being struck or 

dismissed. (!d. at 411.) 

The FAA's Rules of Practice follow this bright line motion practice, by requiring that any 

general motion filed by a party must be in writing, state the relief sought, and then identify the 

particular grounds supporting that requested relief. 14 C.P.R.§ 13.218(b) and (c). 

In the instant case, the pro se Respondent filed two untitled motions to dismiss, by 

imbedding these requests for relief in his August 5, 2015 Answer and in his January 6, 2016 

Reply. The embedded, untitled motions failed to provide fair and clear notice to the opposing 

party or this Court of the Respondent's request for relief, as required by both general federal 

litigation practice and the FAA Rules of Practice. Thus, both ofthe Respondent's untitled 

motions should be struck. 

B. January 19, 2016 Motion to Dismiss 

As noted earlier, on January 19,2016, the Respondent did file a properly titled Motion to 

Dismiss ("Motiori"), with supporting evidence attached. Pursuant to 14 C.F .R. § 13 .218( d), the 

FAA had ten (10) days after service ofthe Motion to file a Response. 

Page 2 of 4 
As oftoday's date, the FAA has failed to file any Response. Nevertheless, the FAA'-s 

lack of Response is not dispositive of the issue. Because the Motion seeks dispositive relief, it 

must be reviewed by this Court on the merits. 

I. FAA's Complaint 

The FAA's May 19, 2015 Complaint asserts that the Respondent "failed to make all 

maintenance records required to be kept" by 14 C.P.R. § 19.417(c) "available for inspection. 

(Comp. 3 §III (3).) According to the Complaint, the FAA sent the Respondent a Letter on or 

about July 1, 2014, asking the Respondent to provide its maintenance records for inspection. 

(Comp. 2-3 §II (2).) Although the Respondent acknowledged receipt of the Letter, he did not 

immediately produce the records. (Comp. 3 §II (3).) On May 19, 2015, approximately eleven 

(11) months after sending the Letter, the FAA charged the Respondent with a violation of 14 

C.P.R.§ 19.417(c). 

2. Respondent's Legal Authority Supporting the Motion 

The Respondent did not cite to any specific legal authority for his Motion. Based on the 

pleadings, the Respondent's Motion has been reviewed under 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(f)(2), which 

allows a party to file a motion to dismiss on any specified ground. 

3. Respondent's Factual Grounds Supporting the Motion 

As factual grounds in support of his Motion, the Respondent asserted that on August 13, 

2015 he allowed the FAA to inspect his maintenance records. (Mot. Ex. 1, 3.) The FAA agreed 

that the Respondent's records were "well qrganized and complete, back to the birth of the 

aircraft." (!d.) According to the Respondent, these records had been "lost" for a time (dates 

unknown). (Mot. Ex. 1, 1.) However, as of October 14, 2015, the FAA confirmed that the 

records had been provided on August 13,2015 and had been found in good order. (ld.) 

4. Brief Discussion 

While it is good that the Respondent's maintenance records have been found and 

inspected, this is not a defense to the charge in the FAA's May 19, 2015 Complaint. The FAA 

Page 3 of 4 
has alleged in its May 19, 2015 Complaint that from July 14, 2014 through May 19, 2015, the 

Respondent was in violation ofthe inspection requirements required by 14 C.P.R. § 19.417(c). 

The fact that the Respondent allowed an inspection of his records on August 13, 2015 

(i.e., approximately three (3) months after being charged with a violation) does not, in any way, 

raise a factual defense to the allegations in the FAA Complaint. However, the results of the 

August 13, 2015 records inspection, and the Respondent's cooperative attitude during that 

inspection, may certainly be utilized in continuing settlement discussions between the parties, or 

alternatively by the Respondent in requesting review of the proposed $11,000 civil penalty. 

C. Conclusion 

Based on the foregoing;'dritl'having reviewed all pleadings and documents, as well as all 

relevant caselaw, decisions, reguTatfon, statutory authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The Respondent's August 5, 2015 Untitled Motion to Dismiss and January 6, 2016 

Renewed Untitled Motion to Dismiss are struck for failure to follow "fair notice" motion 

practice requirements. 

2. The Respondent's January 19,2016 Motion to Dismiss is denied. 

3. A separate order will issue directing the parties to prepare for litigation scheduling. 

4. If either party needs clarification or has any questions regarding the procedures contained 

in this Order, contact Mrs. Rachael Brown at the Office of Hearings (202-366-2132). 

Attachment: Service List 

Page 4 of 4 
Docket No. FAA-20 15-1319 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Mr. David F. Shayne 

Complainant's Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue S.W. 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1847 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

Dr. William Ames Curtright, DBA 

Respondent 

P.O. Box 1350 

Jefferson, OR 97352 

Judge I.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

ONE COPY 

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

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

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