UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO NADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D C

Aer o Ways , Inc. , Complainan t

Delawar e Rive r & Ba y Authority , Responden t FAADocke t No . 16-09-1 2

<~: > o > 1

COMPLAINAN T AER O WAYS . INC . . CONSOLIDATE D RESPONS E AN D MEMORANDUM^ '

T O RESPONDENT S MOTIO NT O DISMIS S ' - '-^
AN D NO Wcome s Complainant , Aer o Ways , Inc. , byand throug hth e undersigne d counsel , and Pursuan t t o Titl e 14 , Cod e o f Federa l Regulation s Par t 16 , Herebyrespond s t o th e Delawar e Rive r and Ba y Authority' s (DRBA ) Motio nt o Dismis s a s follows :

INTRODUCTIO N

Aer o Ways , Inc. , file d a Complain t i nthi s matter , wit h numerou s reference d supportin g document s and exhibits , i nful l complianc e wit hth e provision s o f 1 4 CF RPar t 16.23 . Th e definitio no f a complain t i n1 4 CF RPar t 16. 3 i s ver ybroad , and encompasse s "anythin g allegedl ydon e o r omitte d t o b e don e byany perso ni ncontraventio no f an yprovisio no f anyact. " (Emphasi s added) . Thi s regulator ylanguag e wa s se t fort hi nth e definition s sectio no f Par t 1 6 fo r th e purpos e o f establishin g ho wth e complain t itsel f i s t o b e construed . Contrar yt o thi s ver ybroa d definition . Responden t appear s t o argu e erroneousl yi nth e Motio n t o Dismis s tha t th e comprehensiv e Par t 1 6 Complain t file d herei ni st o b e construe d ver ynarrowl yan d strictly , an d tha t i f anypar t o f

th e complain t i s defective , the nth e entir e matte r mus t b e dismissed . Further , "noncompliance " i s als o define d ver ybroadl yi n1 4 CF RPar t 16. 3 a s "anythin g don e o r omitte d t o b e don e byanyperso n i ncontraventio no f an yprovisio no f th e Act. " (Emphasi s added) . Contrar yt o thi s broa d definition . Responden t her e agai nappear s t o erroneousl yargu e i nth e Motio nt o Dismis s tha t th e Complainant' s comprehensiv e Par t 1 6 Complain t i s t o b e construe d ver ynarrowl y and strictly , and tha t i f anypar t o f th e complain t fail s t o sho w noncompliance , the nth e entir e complain t an d matte r mus t b e dismissed . I nfact , th e Complain t an d relevan t fact s clearl y evidenc e tha t Responden t continue s t o thi s da yt o engag e i na patter no f discriminator yand anti-competitiv e conduc t t o selectivel yrestric t aeronautica l service s a t KILG , an d tha t Aer o Ways , Inc. , continue s t o b e directl yand substantiall yaffecte d by th e Respondent' s current , continuou s an d ongoin g noncompliance . Th e comprehensiv e Complain t i nthi s matte r full ycomplie s wit h 1 4 CF RPar t 16.23 , support s discriminatio nand noncomplianc e byth e Respondent , and wa s no t initiall ydismisse d afte r revie wbyth e Directo r pursuan t t o 1 4 CF RPar t 16.27 . I nRespondent' s Answe r t o th e Complaint , Responden t fail s t o addres s many , i f no t mos t o f th e factua l allegation s containe d i nth e Complain t whic hsuppor t a findin g o f noncompliance , and i nfac t Responden t selectivel ymis

state s mos t o f th e fact s and time-line s whic hwer e se t fort h succinctly , concisel yand comprehensivel yi nth e Complaint , wit h al l reference d supportin g documents . A s such . Responden t ha s faile d t o properl yAnswe r th e Complaint . Pursuan t t o th e Administrativ e Procedure s Ac t i t i s Respondent , wh o file d th e instan t Motio nt o Dismiss , tha t ha s th e burde no f proof , 5 U.S.C . § 556(d) , Director , Offic e o f Worker' s Compensatio nPrograms , Departmen t o f Labo r v . Greenwic hCollieries ,51 2 U S 267 , 27 2 (1994) . Respondent' s Motio nt o Dismis s i s onl y

supporte d byone(l) , fou r pag e verifie d documen t fro mth e Airpor t Director , (Respondent' s Exhibi t 2) , whic hdocumen t i s fa r fro m comprehensive , fail s t o addres s mos t o f th e issue s presente d byth e Complainan t i nth e Complaint , i s sel f serving , intentionall y selective , fail s t o addres s mos t o f th e issue s an d argument s i nth e Respondent' s ownMotio nt o Dismiss , an d i s contradictor yo nit s face^ . Finally , i f th e Responden t i s successfu l i nthi s motio nh e wil l continu e t o violat e federa l obligation s an d regulations . Th e Responden t i s attemptin g t o obtai na dismissa l i norde r t o avoi d a rulin g o nth e merit s o f th e Par t 1 6 Complain t and t o avoi d accountabilit yfo r it s action s agains t Aer o Ways , Inc. . Suc ha resul t woul d clearl yallo wth e Responden t t o flagrantl yand vexatiousl yundermin e th e FAA' s governmenta l mandat e an d authority , and respectfully , shoul d no t b e condone d o r permitte d byth e F7VA . Th e Responden t ha s deliberatel yignore d th e contentiou s disput e betwee nthemselve s and Aer o Ways , Inc. , and stil l th e Respondent' s tru e motiv e i s transparen t - t o d o everythin g possibl e t o avoi d it s dayo f reckoning . Th e Responden t continue s t o thi s hou r wit h obstructionis t conduct ^ agains t Aer o Ways , Inc. , whic hrespectfull y canno t b e condoned .

'Example , i nParagrap h1 5 o f Respondent' s Exhibi t 2 , th e Airport s Directo r discusse s a t lengt htha t Aer o Ways , Inc . faile d t o respon d i nanywa yt o thei r reques t fo r information , the ni n Paragrap h1 6 full ydiscusse s Aer o Ways , Inc.' s response .

^ Las t wee k Responden t sen t a Deman d Lette r t o C . Belmon t Holdings , LLC , a paren t companyt o Aer o Ways . Inc. , requestin g fund s fo r monie s tha t the yha d alreadyreceive d an d fo r check s tha t the ycashed . Furthe r aggravatin g th e situatio ni s th e fac t tha t n o on e a t th e DRBAwil l tal k t o Aer o Ways , Inc . personnel , whic hi s averre d i nth e Complaint .FAILUR E T O DEN Y

Tha t Responden t file d a nAnswe r i nthi s matte r generall y denyin g Aer o Ways , Inc' s averments . Thi s genera l denia l ma yb e acceptabl e unde r variou s stat e rule s bu t i s no t acceptabl e o r eve n permissibl e unde r th e Federa l Rule s o f Procedure , FRC P 8(b) , Wrigh t and Miller , 5 , Federa l Practic e and Procedur e 2d . § 1265(1990) . A s such , th e Respondent' s Answe r i s procedurall ydefectiv e and th e generall ydenie d averment s ar e "admitted" .
REPL YT O RESPONDEN T ARGUMENT S

I . CURREN T COMPLIANC E
Th e Responden t mis-state s th e cas e la winterpretatio ni nth e instan t issue , and i s completel ydisingenuou s i nth e recitatio no f tim e frames . Th e curren t matte r ha s bee non e continuou s discriminator y matte r a s se t fort hi nth e Complaint , an d t o sugges t tha t th e cas e lawcite d preclude s th e filin g o f a complain t afte r suc htim e a s resolutio nand settlemen t discussio nrequire s i s completel yfalse . T o begi nwith , th e Responden t states , "afte r th e passag e o f 2 8 months, th e action s complaine d o f d o no t appea r t o qualif ya s curren t airpor t sponso r action"^ . Thi s i s a disingenuou s statemen t a s mos t o f thos e month s wer e delay s o nth e par t o f th e Respondent , i nsettlemen t and requestin g additiona l lega l information , re writin g Airpor t MinimumStandards , and requestin g continuance s herein . Th e Respondent' s ownMotio nt o Dismiss , (pg . 21) , state s tha t th e DRBAwa s firs t informe d abou t Pre-Complain t Resolutio n procedure s byComplainan t o nJun e 25 , 2008 , whic hi s 2 1 month s prio r t o th e writin g o f thi s Response .
Pag e 2 4 o f th e Respondent' s Memorandum .Th e ter m"curren t compliance " i s cas e and fac t specific , a s

th e mer e complianc e wit h1 4 CF RRul e 16 , and it s specifi c settlemen t requiremen t foun d i n1 4 CF RPar t 16.21 , ca ntak e month s i f no t year s t o complete . I nth e instan t cas e th e Responden t requeste d tw o extension s o f tim e afte r th e filin g o f th e Complain t fo r th e purpos e o f engagin g i nmeaningfu l settlement . Thi s alon e i s cas e specific . Complainan t ha s clearl yan d concisel yshowe d tha t th e instan t matte r ha s bee non e continuou s an d relate d cours e o f conduc t and discriminatio no nth e par t o f respondent , requirin g afte r manymonth s and years , th e interventio no f th e FA At o resolve . Further , Responden t cite s Richar d E . Treer e v . Count yo f Sa n Diego , California , FA ADocke t No . 16-99-15,200 4 W L 3198209 , a t *S , whic hstate s tha t "th e FA Awil l conside r a s ground s fo r dismissa l o f suc hallegation s th e successfu l action , o f th eairpor t

sponso r

t o cur eanyallege d o r potentia l pas t violation. " (Emphasi s added) . I nth e instan t case , th e airpor t sponsor/Responden t di d nothin g t o "cure " a potentia l violation , an d a s suc hth e holdin g i nthi s cas e i s no t o npoint , and doe s no t appl yt o th e instan t facts . Th e whol e issu e o f Aer o Ways , Inc . no wbein g a nFBO' ' i s nothin g mor e tha na re d herring , a s Complainan t ha d n o choic e bu t t o becom e a n FB O i na nattemp t t o wor k aroun d Respondent' s fuelin g violations , and thi s issu e i s on e o f th e relevan t issue s i nthi s actio na s ple d i nth e Complaint . Again , th e Respondent' s motive s ar e transparen t and disingenuous , a s h e ca nno t simpl ytak e selectiv e part s o f th e Complain t and us e the ma s ground s t o dismis s th e entir e matter .
II . FAILE D T O SUBMI T SUFFICIEN T EVIDENC E

A s state d above , th e definitio no f complain t i n1 4 CF RPar t 16. 3 i s ver ybroad , and encompasse s "anythin g allegedl ydon e o r

''Fixe d Bas e Operator .omitte d t o b e don e byanyperso ni ncontraventio no f an yprovisio n

o f an yact" . (Emphasi s added) . Thi s regulator ylanguag e wa s se t fort hi nth e definition s sectio no f Par t 1 6 fo r th e purpos e o f establishin g ho wth e complain t itsel f i s t o b e construed . Contrar y t o thi s ver ybroa d definition . Responden t appear s t o argu e erroneousl yi nth e Motio nt o Dismis s tha t th e comprehensiv e Par t 1 6 Complain t file d herei ni s t o b e construe d ver ynarrowl yand strictly , and tha t i f anypar t o f th e Complain t i s defective , the n th e entir e matte r mus t b e dismissed . A s t o th e Motio nt o Dismiss , th e burde no f proo f i s o nResponden t no t o nComplainant , an d i nth e instan t matte r Responden t di d nothin g mor e tha ncop yand includ e i n th e Motio nmos t o f Complainant' s exhibits , an d onl yon e (1 ) fou r pag e supportin g Declaration . Mos t compellin g i s Respondent' s ownpositio nan d statement s regardin g th e issu e o f Complainan t submittin g sufficien t evidence . O npag e on e (1 ) o f th e Respondent' s Motio nt o Dismis s i s th e followin g statement :
"Som e claim s fai l t o stat e cause s o f action . Som e ar e entirel yunsupporte d - withou t anybasi s i nth e record . Som e allegation s ar e actuall ycontrar yt o th e record . Som e allegation s ar e supporte d onl ybyunswor nstatement s tha t ar e largel yhearsa yand mad e withou t persona l knowledge" . Acceptin g arguend o th e Respondent' s statement . Responden t i s admittin g tha t som e o f Complainant' s allegation s ar e i nfac t supporte d bylawand fact , whic hfac t i nand o f itsel f woul d requir e th e FA

At o dismis s Respondent' s motion . Lastly , ther e i s th e issu e o f hearsay . Finally , althoug hth e Complainan t doe s no t agre e tha t th e allegation s i nth e complain t ar e hearsay , thi s poin t i s moo t a s th e FA Aand NTS B hav e accepte d hearsay , an d eve ndoubl e hearsay , i nal l DOT/FA Aadministrativ e cases , statin g tha t th e Federa l Rule s o fCivi l Procedur e and Evidenc e ar e mer e guidelines . I nAdministrato r

V . Ferguson . NTS B Orde r No . EA-536 0 a t 10-1 1 (2008 ) (citing Petitio no f Car vA . Neihane , NTS B Orde r No . EA-516 6 (2005)) , th e NTS B Boar d state d tha t i t i s no t boun d b e th e Federa l Rule s o f Evidence , bu t consider s the mt o b e "non-bindin g guidance. " Th e Boar d wen t o nt o hol d tha t i t i s no t boun d byevidentiar yo r procedura l rule s tha t appl yi nothe r courts . Furthermore , th e Boar d i s awar e o f th e wid e latitud e tha t th e Administrativ e Procedure s Ac t provide s agencie s concernin g th e admissibilit yo f evidenc e a t administrativ e hearings , 5 U.S.C . § 556(d ) and Administrato r v . Angstadt , NTS B Orde r No . EA-5421 , (2008 ) .
III . TH E AUTHORITY' S RESPONS E T O TH E SPECIFI C COUNT S
Thi s sectio ni nth e Respondent' s Memorandu mi s mor e o f a n expande d answe r o r closin g argumen t tha na Motio nt o Dismiss . A s such , fo r judicia l economy . Complainan t incorporate s herei nth e Complain t and al l supportin g document s i nrespons e t o thi s section .
I nfurthe r response , thi s matte r i s no t abou t Aer o Ways , Inc . versu s X O Jet . Responden t spend s muc htim e recitin g fact s tha t ar e a t issu e and g o t o th e merit s o f thi s matter , an d whic hd o no t properl ybelon g i na Motio nt o Dismiss . Som e o f th e fact s and issue s tha t ar e full yplea d i nComplainant' s Complain t and tha t Responden t fail s t o specificall ydenyi nhi s Answe r and Motio nt o Dismis s are :

a ) A t n o tim e prio r t o thi s actio ndi d Responden t kno wo f th e fac t tha t X O Je t wa s a Par t 13 5 Operator , and th e Exhibit s provide d i nth e Complian t sho wi t wa s no t unti l thi s matte r wa s file d tha t Responden t investigate d same , and Responden t the nobtaine d th e 13 5 Operatin g Certificate ;b ) Tha t th e Responden t ha s n o ide a whethe r X O Je t operate s

aircraf t requirin g avgas , however , thi s fac t i s irrelevan t a s al l individual s o nth e fiel d wit ha fue l station , mus t hav e avgas ; (Se e Exhibi t "J" , pag e 15 , o f th e Complaint )

c ) Tha t Responden t completel yfaile d t o addres s th e fact s se t fort hi nth e Complain t regardin g th e relevan t tim e lin e herein . Th e tim e lin e ha d Responden t firs t tellin g Aer o Ways , Inc . tha t i t coul d no t fue l aircraf t becaus e th e aircraf t wer e no t owne d b yAer o Ways , Inc. . Whe nAer o Ways , Inc . tol d Responden t tha t X O Je t di d no t ow nit s aircraf t either , th e Responden t nex t too k th e positio n tha t X O Je t coul d fue l it s ow naircraf t becaus e the ywer e a Fractiona l Subpar t K operator . Afte r X O Jet' s Fractiona l Subpar t K statu s wa s refute d b yAer o Ways , Inc.' s exper t Jame s Dornak^ , th e Respondent ' s nex t ste p o nth e continuin g roa d o f discriminatio nwa s t o us e th e Par t 13 5 defense . Thes e action s wer e no t addresse d a t al l i nth e Answe r b yRespondent ; (Se e Exhibi t "H " o f th e Complaint )

d ) Tha t t o thi s dat e Responden t ha s faile d and/o r refuse d t o communicat e wit hAer o Ways , Inc. ; (Se e Exhibi t "E " o f th e Complaint )

e ) Tha t materia l representation s mad e b yMr . Donal d Rainei r t o Aer o Ways , Inc. , wer e materiall ybreached^ , an d fo r unknow nreason s Mr . Rainei r wa s late r terminate d fro mhi s Senio r Managemen t positio nwit hth e Respondent ;

f ) Tha t Respondent' s Airport s Manage r cam e int o Aer o Ways , Inc. , producin g sel f servin g selectiv e cas e la wi nsuppor t o f hi s position .
^Forme r FAAInspecto r a t th e Philadelphi a FSDO .

* Thes e representation s wer e plea d i nth e Complaint , bu t wer e no t addresse d b yth e Respondent . A s such , Mr . Raineir' s depositio nwil l therefor e b e necessary .IV . FAILUR E T O STAT E ACAUS E O F ACTIO N

Again , thi s sectio ni nth e Respondent' s Memorandu mi s mor e o f a nexpande d answe r o r closin g argumen t tha na Motio nt o Dismiss . A s such , fo r judicia l economy . Complainan t incorporate s herei n thei r Complain t and al l supportin g document s i nrespons e t o thi s section . Complainant' s wel l ple d Complaint , wit hrelevan t supportin g documentation , mor e tha nadequatel ystate s and support s a caus e o f actio nunde r th e "Act " a s define d i n1 4 CF RPar t 16.3 , i s no t purel yspeculative , and i s no t simpl ywron g a s Responden t suggests . Thi s shotgu napproac hdeal s wit hfact s a t issu e and goe s t o th e merit s o f th e matter , and shoul d no t properl yb e se t fort hi na Motio nt o Dismiss . A s previousl ystate d above , Complainan t question s Respondent' s owncontradictor ypositio nand statement s regardin g th e issu e o f Complainan t submittin g sufficien t evidence . O npag e on e (1 ) o f th e Respondent' s Motio nt o Dismis s i s th e followin g statement :
"Som e claim s fai l t o stat e cause s o f action . Som e ar e entirel yunsupporte d - withou t anybasi s i nth e record . Som e allegation s ar e actuall ycontrar yt o th e record . Som e allegation s ar e supporte d onl ybyunswor nstatement s tha t ar e largel yhearsa yand mad e withou t persona l knowledge" . Finally , althoug hthi s sectio ni nRespondent' s Memorandu mset s fort hfact s a t issue . Complainan t wil l briefl yaddres s them . 1 ) Responden t di d no t a t al l relevan t time s infor mAer o Ways , Inc . tha t X O Je t wa s a 13 5 operator ; Complainan t stil l maintain s tha t Responden t afte r th e fac t obtaine d an d supplie d th e 13 5 Certificate .2 ) Th e lac k o f communication , whic hcontinue s today , ha d

nothin g t o d o wit hattorne yclien t privilege , bu t rathe r malice , retributio nan d discrimination . 3 ) Th e amende d "current " policie s o f th e Responden t ar e als o a seriou s fac t a t issue , a s fo r th e mos t part , unlik e othe r airpor t authorities . Responden t ha d n o policie s a t al l o nth e relevan t issues . 4 ) Th e gat e reade r issu e i s nothin g mor e tha na nexampl e o f th e continue d discriminator ypractice s b yResponden t agains t Aer o Ways , Inc. . Thi s fac t a t issue , whic hi s full ydescribe d b yAer o Ways , Inc.' s CE O i nComplain t Exhibi t "F " pag e 180-184 , onl ybecam e a nissu e whe nth e Respondent' s airpor t manage r sen t Aer o Ways , Inc . a ne-mai l statin g tha t "mos t importantly " i s th e fac t tha t th e tw o aircraf t describe d i nyou r e-mai l wer e no t o nth e airfiel d a t th e tim e o f th e incident . I nfact , afte r receivin g informatio nunde r th e Freedo mo f Informatio nAct , i t wa s substantiate d tha t Aer o Ways , Inc . wa s correct .
CONCLUSIO N

Fo r th e foregoin g reason s se t fort hi nthi s Consolidate d Response , i t i s respectfull yrequeste d tha t th e Respondent' s Motio n t o Dismis s b e denie d an d dismissed , an d furthe r th e Responden t b e Temporaril yEnjoine d fro mcontinuin g an ydiscriminator yo r retributor yaction s agains t Aer o Ways , Inc. , durin g th e pendenc yo f thi s action , o r unti l furthe r Order . Respectfull ySubmitted ,

^JOSEPH^MICHAE L LAMONAC A Attorne yfo r Aer o Ways , Inc .CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I herebycertif ytha t o nthi s 29*^* ^ da yo f March , 2010 , serve d th e foregoin g Respons e t o Motio nt o Dismis s o nth e followin g person s a t th e followin g addresse s by :

Federa l Express : Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l FA APar t 1 6 Airpor t Proceeding s Docket , AGC-61 0 Roo m92 5 Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Regula r Mail :

R . Judso nScaggs , Jr . Lesli e A . Polozot i Paulett a J . Brown Morris , Nichols , Arsh t and Tunnell , LL P 120 1 Marke t Street , 18t hFloo r P.O . Bo x134 7 Wilmington , D E 19899-134 7

p hMichaeJs^amonac a Counse l fo r Aer o Ways , Inc . Ne wCastl e Count yAirpor t P O Bo x1058 3 Wilmington , D E 19850-058 3 (610 ) 558-337 6 offic e (302 ) 221-234 7 fa x