Dec. 1. 2008 5;00PM michael a, /pizz i jr . lo. 4455 P. 1 

Michael A. Pizzi. Jr., P. A. 

From: Michael A, Pizzi, Jr. Date: la-l-z^S' 

To: /Vnn Henley ^^|^/|i -

Pages: (including cover) 

Please deliver immediately to: f\r\f \ fwOiC U j ClCfn i 

^VD&C find Pt*1ioners' r<?ply fe^icf 

c::> 

VOICE. 305 231-2121 - FAX: 305 231-2123 - E-Mail: mPiz2ifr@vahoo.com 

15J7I A'. U. Oif' Avi'niH', Suite 206A, Mitinn hik.'y, I L ^M)14 

-~\ 
lee, 1. 2008 5;00PM michael a, pizzi J r, No. 4455 P. 2 

FAA PART 16 AIRPORT PROCEEDINGS DOCKET 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Docket No.: 16-08-05 

ALCA, Inc., Cylinder Shop, Inc., 

Suncoast Aviation, Airlcraft Parts 

and National Aviation, 

vs. 

Miami-Dade County, Florida 

/ 

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS AND REPLY BRIEF OF 

PETITIONERS 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The County's Motion to Dismiss is frivolous as it ignores the thousands of pages of 

documents (two phone bool^s) that have been submitted to the FAA and County, including 

all of the relevant leases, correspondence, newspapers articles, letters, etc. Its only 

relevance Is that it signals the County's awareness of the need to divert.attention from the 

established record of economic discrimination and violations of Grant Assurance 22. As 

for the response to the Part 16 complaint, the County's response contains multiple 

admissions that, even without further submissions by the petitioners, demonstrate that the 

central points raised by petitioners are In fact true. That said, the County's response does 

omit certain facts that are part of the uncontroverted record in this cause and which 

demonstrate the following: 

1. Despite over one year having passed since the submission of the Part 13 

informal complaint (and a never ending stream of promises to negotiate with existing 

tenants claiming economic discrimination), NO ONE has been given a lease and everyone 

is being evicted in an expedited fashion. 

2. All of the complaining tenants and others in their category are being evicted in 

requests for expedited eviction proceedings, contrary to the representation of the County 

in both the Part 13 process and in response to the instant complaint; 

3. Multiple formal proposals have been submitted, but none have received any 

serious consideration and no amount of financial documents or proposals have deterred 

the county or its tenants from going fonward with immediate evictions; The record speaks 

for itself. 

4. During the past year, the county has not met ONE TIME with any of these 

tenants or provided any opportunities anywhere at the airport: 

5. The complaining tenants have not only submitted proposals and financlals, but 

have met on several occasions with the County's sub tenants. Yet they have not received 

any of the promised opportunities, as the economic discrimination being perpetuated has 

shut small business owners out of the airport; 
lee, 1, 2008 5;00PM michael a. pizz i j r. No. 4455 P. 3 

6. The mom and pop aviation related business are being thrown into the street so 

major developers can land bank and change the character of the airport to non-aviation 

related business, In developing an airport where the small aviation related business are 

simply not welcome. 

As more time has passed and as the county and its sub-tenant have continued to 

deprive small, primarily Hispanic owned businesses of access to leases at the airport, the 

need for FAA intervention is becoming more evident and more critical. 

II. RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS 

Both the informal Part 13 informal complaint and Part 16 formal complains contain 

and attach two phone books full of exhibits ("A" through "Q"), including all of the relevant 

leases and public records, many of which are sited to in the County's own response. In 

the many months that the county had the complaint, no correspondence was received 

suggesting that the exhibits were not attached, if so, they would have been sent over 

immediately. 

Reference at this point is made to exhibits "A" through "Q" attached to both 

complaints and also the public records referenced in these complaints that are all in the 

county's possession. Exhibits "A" through "Q" of the Part 13 complaint are once again 

hereby incorporated by reference, as are all of the documents submitted by the county, as 

well and public records already in the possession of the FAA relating to all of leases 

referenced herein. 

In addition, attached please find a receipt signed by the County explicitly 

acknowledging receipt of the Part 16 complaint and "two thick binders" containing all of the 

exhibits that the county now claims they do not have. Thus, the complaint is supported by 

evidence that demonstrates all of the violations alleged. 

Even if these exhibits were not attached In phone book form twice, the County has 

in its possession, the AA lease, the Natoli lease, all of the leases of the complaining 

parties, as well as all of the emails and eviction notices referenced in these documents. 

The County is also a party to the pending eviction proceedings and is in possession of the 

eviction notices and other public records relating to those proceedings. The FAA also has 

all of the exhibits and records and the instant motion to dismiss is both factually wrong and 

frivolous. 

III. REPLY TO COUNTY'S RESPONSE 

A. INITIAL MISSTATEMENTS AND/OR OMISSIONS: 

As an Initial matter the county's response tries to minimize the long term nature of 

the petitioners' role at the airport. Although ALCA's recent lease was signed in June, 2001, 

M^m 
)ec, 1. 2008 5:00PM michael a. pizzi Jr. No. 4455 P. 4 

ALCA has in fact been a tenant at the airport for over twenty years. Likewise, while Aircraft 

Parts lease was signed in 1993, this company has been at the airport over twenty years. 

As for the Cylinder Shop, they have been at the Airport for over thirty one years, as has 

National Aviation. The County's response reference the most recent lease while Ignoring 

the long term commitment of these companies to the airport. 

The County's response dos not dispute the fact that, as noted in the complaint, 

these companies provide critical, unique and much needed aviation related businesses 

and services at 

the airport, such as training pilots for Homeland security and maintaining Air Force 

aircrafts. The County does not dispute the factual assertions relating to the aviation related 

nature of the complaining parties and the fact that their role at the airport is consistent with 

the type of aviation related business that are protected under FAA rules. 

B. THE COUNTY HAS FAILED TO HEED THE FAA'S WARNING AND ENGAGE IN 

GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TENANTS AS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO 

COMPLY WITH GRANT ASSURANCE 22 

The County completely mischaracterizes the FAA's Response to the informal Part 

13 Complaint. In its letter of December 11, 2007, the FAA stated that "AA and the tenants 

should continue to negotiate In good faith to come to lease agreements." Thus, the FAA's 

response to the Part 13 Complaint was to encourage the parties to negotiate and was 

predicated upon assurances from the County and AA that efforts were going to be made to 

provide long term leases to the existing tenants. In addition, the FAA's preliminary 

determination In response to the Part 13 complaint was based on information provided by 

the County that assured the FAA that the initial eviction notices sent by AA were not in fact 

going to be a precursor for eviction. The County explicitly stated that the eviction notices 

were merely subtle attempts at facilitating negotiation that would lead to long term leases. 

Specifically, in his letter dated December 3, 2007, Mr. Southwell of Miami-Dade 

Aviation reported that "it is clear that AA's intent was to capture the attention of the tenants 

and induce them to make contact with AA so that a meaningful discussion of the tenants' 

desires and AA's plans could start." Southwell went on to further assure the FAA that 

evictions were not forthcoming, by stating that if AA truly wished to evict these tenants, "AA 

would have the letter with eviction against all tenants. That, of course has not happened." 

See Southwell letter. 

Thus, the FAA's lack of inten/ention at that time was based on its reliance on the 

word of the County that the sub-tenant would not do exactly what it is now doing. 

Attached please find the docket sheets of pending eviction actions against ALCA, 

Cylinder Shop, and Aircraft Parts (all public record) disclosing multiple pleadings filed by 

the County's sub-tenant In an attempt to obtain the most expeditious eviction of all of these 

tenants. These pleadings and ongoing efforts to get the court to throw the complaining 

parties off the property are not consistent with the assertions made In the County's 

response that this is not happening. It is what it is and the record speaks for itself. 

ife. 
)ec, 1, 2008 5;00PM michael a, pizzi jr. No. 4455 P. 5 

The point, is that if the FAA were aware of the fact that AA was seeking immediate 

evictions of all of these tenants, with no offers from the County for alternative space, the 

FAA's decision might have been quite different Thus, the repeated suggestions that the 

FAA should be swayed by a letter that was predicated upon entirely different 

circumstances, is disingenuous, to say the least. 

C. THE COUNTY IS WRONG/THE TENANTS HAVE CONSTANTLY TRIED TO 

NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH AND BEEN THWARTED AT ALL TURNS 

The image presented by the County is that the complaining tenants have done 

nothing to negotiate with AA. That is simply wrong. The truth is as follows: 

1. AA has refused to provide the tenants with any of the most basic information 

needed to accommodate AA's request for proposals; AA tells the tenants they have to 

move, but never provides possible alternative locations and never provides promised long 

range plans to demonstrate where the tenants would fit in; 

2. All of the tenants* good faith proposals and submissions of financial data have 

fallen upon def ears and not led to any progress in obtaining leases for any of these 

tenants; 

3. The provision of proposals has not impeded the efforts by AA toward expedited 

evictions, which is exactly what the County told the FAA during the Part 13 process, would 

not happen. 

4. The County's ongoing statements In responsive pleadings to the effect that 

complaining 

a tenant have not negotiated or submitted proposals, is simply not true and has never 

been true; 

Reference is made to exhibits F through I of the Part 13 complaint reflecting 

proposals made by Cylinder Shop, ALCA and Aircraft Parts to AA and/or the County, all of 

which were ignored. 

Attached please find ALCA and Aircraft's more recent letters to AA, attaching all 

requested credit requests and reams of financial a data, including tax returns. These 

efforts to comply with requests of AA have produced nothing. 

In addition, reference is made again to exhibit "F" of the Part 13 complaint, wherein 

Cylinder Shop is explicit in its business plan and. exhibit "1", which is a series of emails 

from the county promising Cylinder shop a long temn lease. Reference is made to the 

attached more recent letter from Cylinder shop reiterating for the umpteenth time the same 

proposal. The Cylinder Shop has been at Opa Locka Airport for over 31 years and has 

more than demonstrated long term financial stability by never missing a single rent 

payment in the entire 32 year period. The Cylinder Shop's proposal to maintain its pilot 

training and flight shop at Its existing location and to receive permission to construct a 

10,000 square foot hanger at its own expense at that location, has been in existence for 
lee. 1. 2008 5:00PM michael a. pizzi Jr. No. 4455 P. 6 

many years and has not changed. The County has submitted not one, but two contrived 

declaration by County employee Maria Anon to somehow come up with a plausible 

explanation as to why Ms. Anon (on behalf of the County) infonned the Cylinder Shop that 

they would be receiving a 10 to 15 year lease, and then reneged. 

The fact is that on June 2, 2005, the Cylinder Shop sent an email to the County 

confinning the new 15 year lease and stated as follows: "thank for giving us the new 

lease", which clearly references the 15 lease discussed In the rest of the email chain. See 

County Exhibit "I. 

The County has known for over three and one half years that the Cylinder Shop 

wanted a long term lease at their existing location, with the right to construct a 10,000 

square foot hanger. In tum. the County turned over this land to AA and has provided no 

opportunities for Cylinder Shop. The record could not be clearer. 

Cylinder Shop has been an airport for over 31 years and never missed a rent 

payment and has submitted its business plan In writing and verbally on numerous 

occasions. The only explanation for the lack of an accommodation is economic 

discrimination, in violation of Grant Assurance 22. 

In addition, attached please find a composite exhibit consisting of letters dating 

back to December, 2007, from counsel offering to negotiate terms with AA's lawyers and 

documenting their refusal to provide an accommodation. 

AA's REFUSAL TO PROVIDE PROMISED MATERIALS: 

Attached please find a portion of a letter from AA's attorneys which states as follows: 

"In turn you requested that AA A provide the following infomiation in order for your 

clients to assess and prepare their respective proposals: 

1. Price range per square footage for developed land and tarmac land; 

2. Location availability; and 

3. Temns reached with other tenants." 

To date, none of these materials have ever been provided. 
)ec, 1, 2008 5:01PM michael a. pizzi J r. No, 4455 P. 1 

In addition, attached please find email to AA's lawyers offering to meet and 

requesting "a detailed business plan" that had been promised, so that the tenants would 

know exactly what was being made available. This email was sent on August 18, 2008 and 

to date no information has been provided. 

In addition, the tenants met with the County Mayor on September 11, 2007, as 

reflected in the attached letters and also met with AA representative on October 5, 2007 

and June 20, 2008, to no avail. 

Thus, the record in this cause is that no matter what the tenants do, nothing stands 

in the way of the efforts to evict them forthwith. Thus, the entire premise in the County's 

response that there are ongoing good faith negotiations is simply not true. 

D. COUNTY'S RESPONSE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE COMPLAINING PARTIES 

WERE SUBJECTED TO DISPARATE TREATMENT. 

Throughout the response, the County acknowledges that certain parties were 

carved out, while the complaining parties were not. Reading the County's response in its 

entirely, it consists of two things: 

1. An admission that multiple parties, big and small businesses (Including start-ups) 

were provided with long term leases at the same time that the complaining tenants were 

refused the same privilege; 

2. A series of endless excuses trying to justify the unjustifiable; 

The County's response also admits that other similarly situated tenants were 

provided with accommodation in the form of long terms leases in one of two ways: 

A. "Take back" of land from the AA lease; 

B. Exclusion from the AA lease in the first place. 

In other words, the allegation in the Part 16 Complaint that some tenants were given 

long term lease to the exclusion of the complaining tenants is in fact true; by the County's 

own admission. 

Paragraphs 21 of the County's response confirms what the petitioners have always 

stated and what Is clear from the attached leases, namely, that certain parties received 

favorable treatment. As admitted by the County in paragraph 21; "eleven areas were 

excluded" from AA's lease. This included section 2.02 of AA's lease, which specifically 

provides that "the property leased to Miami Executive Aviation Is not included In the 

premises hereunder." See paragraph 21 of County's Response. 
)ec. 1. 2008 5:01PM michael a. pizzi Jr. No. 4455 P. 8 

Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the County's response admit that the County engaged in 

"take-back" activities under the long terms leases to Stagecoach and later AA, which 

pemnitted the County to "take-back" land to accommodate existing tenants and/or tenants 

who had been negotiating with the County for long term leases when the Stagecoach and 

AA leases were signed. 

Thus, the county admits in its response that when it wanted to, it accommodated 

other tenants who were in the same situation as the complaining tenants. The complaining 

tenants have documents that they submitted proposals to the County that even pre-dated 

the proposals of the parties who the county exercised "take-back" authority to protect. 

There is no logical reason to "take-back " land and/or exclude land from AA's; lease to 

accommodate MEA, Natoli, Opa Locka Flightline and others, and not do the same for 

parties that were clearly in the same category. All of the complaining tenants share the 

following common criteria with all of the tenants who received the benefits of long tenn 

leases obligated with either the "take-back" authority or lease exclusions; 

1. They all were existing tenants; and 

2. They all had submitted proposals. 

The county acknowledges that it did in fact engage in "take-back" efforts to 

accommodate tenants, even at the risk of a lawsuit by Stagecoach. But, the county never 

extended that effort toward the complaining parties. 

E. COMPARISON PETITIONERS AND OTHERS: 

1. AA AND PETITIONERS 

Reference is made to page four through five of the Part 13 submission (attached 

again), which details the following, as do the public records and leases of the parties: 

a. AA was given a 53 year lease; 

b. The complaining tenants were given no lease and are being evicted; 

c. AA can use the money received from sub.-tenants to pay any future lease 

payments, while the initial years are free; 

d. The existing tenants have to Invest their own money and have never received 

free rent or the ability to sub-lease and have the sub tenants pays their 

rent/investment; 

e. AA was given over 180 acres of land, while the complaining tenants have been 

given nothing; 
lee. 1. 2008 5:01PM michael a. pizzi Jr. No. 4455 P. 9 

f. AA was new to the airport and had no aviation related experience, while the 

existing tenants have ail been at the airport for decades operating aviation related 

businesses. 

2. NATOLI. Opa Loca Fliahtline. the CDC and MEA versus PETITIONERS: 

Reference is made to pages five and six of the Part 13 submission, the County's 

responsive pleading and the existing leases of all parties to demonstrate the great lengths 

that the County went to accommodate these companies, while allowing the complaining 

parties to be evicted. 

It should also be noted that the Natoli lease was as the direct result of an FAA 

complaint filed by Natoli (attached). Natoli's allegations mirror those of the complaining 

parties and Natoli was accommodated. The complaining parties were not. Natoli's plan and 

that of the parties that were accommodated are no more explicit than those submitted to 

the complaining parties- Natoli was caved out for a 25 year lease and a hanger, while the 

complaining parties who made identical requests received nothing. 

Truth be told, AA Is still trying to detemnine its business plan, which is a work in 

progress. The complaining tenants actually had a concrete plan and had been there longer 

and never missed a rent payment. 
)ec, 1. 2008 5:01P M michae l a, pizz i Jr. No. 4455 P, 10 

CONCLUSIONS 

For all the reasons stated herein, it is requested that the FAA intervene in this matter 

and consider invalidating the AA lease and insure that the complaining parties are provided 

with the long term leases needed to insure compliance with Grant Assurance 22. The 

complaining parties are requesting the County and its sub-tenants to comply with Grant 

Assurance 22 and provide the petitioners with long term leases. 

8 
Dec. 1. 2008 5:01PM michael a. pizzi Jr. Jo. 445 5 P. 11 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael A. Pizzi, Jr., P. A. 

Attorney for Complainants 

15271 NW 60*^ Avenue, Suite 206-A 

Miami Lakes, FL 33014 

Office: (305)231-2121 

Fax: (305)231-2122 

By: 

Q 

Michael A. Pizzi, Jr., Esq. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have on the 1st day of December, 2008, served the foregoing 

Response to Motion to Dismiss and Reply Brief of Petitioners on the following persons at the 

following addresses by Federal Express, or by personal delivery, and by facsimile transmission: 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

AGC-610 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Hon. Carlos Alvarez, Mayor 

Miami-Dade County 

Stephen P. Clark Center 

111 N. W. 1** Street ^ 29"' Floor 

Miami, FL 33128 

David Murray, Esq. 

County Attorney 

P.O. Box 025504 

Miami, FL 33102-5504 

By: 

^ 

Michael A. Pizzi, Jr, Esq. 

Florida Bar. No, 079545 

fe^ ^ f