### In The Matter Of: 

### SERVED: May 20,2016 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

DocketNo. FAA-2015-1319 WILLIAM A. CURTRIGHT ) ) ) ) ) 

### CaseNo. 2014NM090046 Respondent

ORDERDENYING THE RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING/DENYING OTHER RELIEF 

### On August 5, 2015, theprose 

### 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"). OnNovember 19, 2015, an Order Setting Deadlines for the FAAto File a Response, the Respondentto File aReply, and Reserving Other Reliefwas filed. On December4, 2015, the FAA filed the Complainant's Response to the ALJ's Order of November 19, 2015 ("Responseto Show Cause"). 1 

### This Response to Show Cause did not object to, orrespond 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) ofthis Reply was a renewed, untitled Motionto 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 Courtto 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 ofthe November 19, 2015 Order have already been addressed in the May 18, 2016 Order Finding Good Cause for the Respondent's Untimely Answer, Denyingthe 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 atitled Motion to Dismiss ("Motion"). As oftoday'sdate, the FAA has notfiled any Response to the Motion. A. Proper Motion Practice- Fair and ClearNotice ofRequest 

### In general,

# a motion is "arequest to the court, usually submitted in writing, that seeks an order." StevenBaicker-McKee, et al., Federal CivilRulesHandbook, 

### 348 (West Publishing 2016). It

### is well-establishedthat writtenmotions must comply with certain "fairnotice" requirements, bothintitle and content. (!d. 

### at 409.) See also, 

### Fed. Rs. Civ. P. 7(b) and 10. This includes identifying the motion(s) inthe title ofthe document, and then setting forth "each distinct allegation" supporting eachmotionrequest in a separately numbered paragraph. (!d. 

### at 405-409.) The purpose oftheserequirements is to give fair notice ofthe 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 aparty 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'sRules ofPractice follow this bright line motionpractice, by requiring that any general motion filed by aparty mustbe in writing, state the reliefsought, and then identify the particular grounds supporting that requested relief. 14 C.P.R.§ 13.218(b) and (c). In the instant case, thepro se 

### Respondent filed two untitled motions to dismiss, by imbedding these requests for reliefin 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 ofthe Respondent's request for relief, as required by both general federal litigation practice and the FAA Rules ofPractice. Thus, both oftheRespondent's untitled motions should be struck. B. January 19, 2016 Motion to Dismiss 

### As noted earlier, onJanuary 19,2016,the Respondent did file aproperly titled Motionto Dismiss ("Motiori"), with supporting evidence attached. Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(d), the FAA had ten (10) days after service oftheMotion to file a Response. Page 2 of4As oftoday's date, the FAA has failed to file any Response. Nevertheless, the FAA'-s lack ofResponse is not dispositive ofthe 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 thatthe 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 aboutJuly 1, 2014, asking the Respondentto provide its maintenancerecords for inspection. (Comp. 2-3 §II (2).) Althoughthe Respondent acknowledged receipt ofthe Letter, he did not immediatelyproduce the records. (Comp. 3 §II (3).) On May 19, 2015, approximately eleven (11) months after sendingthe Letter, the FAA charged the Respondent with a violation of 14 C.P.R.§ 19.417(c). 2. Respondent's Legal Authority Supportingthe 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 Supportingthe Motion As factual grounds in support ofhis Motion, the Respondent asserted that on August 13, 2015 he allowed the FAAto 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 ofthe aircraft." (!d.) Accordingto the Respondent, these records had been "lost" for a time (dates unknown). (Mot. Ex. 1, 1.) However, as ofOctober 14, 2015, the FAA confirmed that the records had been provided on August 13,2015 and had been found in good order. (ld.) 4. BriefDiscussion While it is good that the Respondent's maintenance records have been found and inspected, this is nota defense to the charge in the FAA's May 19, 2015 Complaint. TheFAA

Page 3 of4has alleged in its May 19, 2015 Complaintthat from July 14, 2014 through May 19, 2015, the Respondent was in violation oftheinspectionrequirements requiredby 14 C.P.R. § 19.417(c). The fact thatthe Respondent allowed an inspection ofhis records on August 13, 2015 (i.e., approximately three (3) months afterbeing charged with a violation) does not, in any way, raise a factual defenseto the allegations in the FAA Complaint. However, the results ofthe August 13, 2015 records inspection, and the Respondent's cooperative attitude during that inspection, may certainly be utilized in continuing settlementdiscussions betweenthe parties, or alternativelybythe Respondent in requesting reviewofthe proposed $11,000 civil penalty. C. Conclusion Based onthe 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 Motionto Dismiss are struck for failure to follow "fair notice" motion practice requirements. 2. The Respondent'sJanuary 19,2016Motionto Dismiss is denied. 3. A separate orderwill issue directing the parties to prepare for litigation scheduling. 4. Ifeitherparty needs clarification orhas any questions regardingthe procedures contained in this Order, contactMrs. Rachael Brown atthe Office ofHearings (202-366-2132).

Attachment: Service List

Page 4 of4DocketNo. FAA-2015-1319 (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-Suite2W1000 1

Mr. David F. Shayne Complainant's Counsel NorthwestMountain 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 ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 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 orby 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.