FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N WASHINGTON , D.C . SKYDIV E SACRAMENT O

Complainant , vs . TH E CITY O F LINCOLN , CALIFORNI A

Responden t 

# 1

^ n E e E i w OQ T - 2 200 9 AIRPORT/ENVIRONMENTA L LAW , AGC-60 0 

### F R N

Docke t No . 16-09-0 9

COMPLAINANT' S CONSOLmATE D REPL Y T O RESPONDENT' S ANSWE R (T O COMPLAINT) , DISMISSA L O F CERTAI N SPECIFI C CLAIM S O F VIOLATIO N B Y RESPONDEN T AN D ANSWE R I N OPPOSITIO N T O RESPONDENT' S MOTIO N T O DISMIS S Pleas e serve : Richar d J . Durde n Richar d J . Durden , Attorne y at La w 2798 7 Richmon d Hil l Roa d Conifer , Colorad o 8043 3 616/901-651 6 avlawyer@vahoo.co m

Counse l fo r

Complainan t Scott P . Lewi s Christin e M . Griffi n ANDERSO N & KREIGE R L.L.P . On e Cana l Park , Suit e 20 0 Cambridge , MA . 0214 1 T : 617/621-656 0 F : 617/621-666 0 slewis@andersonkreiger . co m cgriffm@andersonkreiger.co m Counse l for

Responden t

NO W COME S Complainant , Skydiv e Sacramento , b y an d throug h it s attorne y an d fo r it s Consolidate d Repl y t o Respondent' s Answe r (t o Complaint) , Dismissa l o f Certai n Specifi c Claim s o f Violatio n b y Responden t an d Answe r

I n Opposition t o Respondent' s Motio n t o Dismiss , state s a s follows :Fo

r th e sak e o f efficienc y an d brevity . Complainan

t herein combine s it s Repl

y to Respondent' s Answe

r (pe r 1 4 CF R §16.23(e ) fo

r which Responden

t i s allowe d arebuttal) , it s Dismissa l o f Certai n Specific Claim s o f Violatio n b

y Responden

t (fo r which n o responsiv e pleadin g i s require d o

r permitted ) and it s Answe

r i n Oppositio n to Respondent' s Motio n to Dismis s (pe

r 1 4 CF R §16.19(c) , fo

r which no furthe

r pleadin g i s permitted) . Respondent' s supportin g evidentiar y materia l provide d Complainant , fo r the first time , certai n information regardin g th e City' s approac h t o the drop zone leas e which allow s Complainan

t to no w dismis s som

e o f it s claim s o f

violatio n b

y th e City . Complainan

t recognize s tha t th e Cit y i s currently unde

r significan t financial pressures , a s i s Complainant . Ha d Responden

t eve n onc e agree d to Complainant' s repeate d request s to negotiat e the drop zon

e leas e i t appear s tha

t al l bu t afe w o f th e issue s tha

t ar e apar t o f the Complain

t i n thi s matte

r coul d hav e been resolved . It i s possibl e tha

t instea d o f bot h partie s expendin g funds the y cannot affor d on thi s matter , Skydive Sacrament o coul d no w hav e bee n operatin g on th e airpor t drop zone , an d expande d it s busines s an

d would hav e bee

n bringin g mor

e mone y into th e City' s coffers a s i t

purchase d eve

n mor e fue l fro mth e Cit y an d skydivin g enthusiast s frequented are a motel s an d restaurant s i

n greate r number s tha

n a t present . A s will b e se

t ou t below , base d on informatio n th e Cit y ha s no w provided , Skydive Sacrament o i s dismissin g anumbe

r th e specifi c allegation s o

f violatio n by th e City , whil e opposin g th e City' s Motio n t o Dismis s it s remainin g claim s o f violatio n b

y th e City . I . Complaint' s Repl

y to Respondent' s Answe

r to Complain

t and Dismissa

l Of Specific Cause s o f Actio n fo r Violation s by Responden

t A . I n paragraph 22 o f

Respondent' s Answe

r (Answer) , th e Cit

y assert s tha

t th e drop zon e an d propose d building s to suppor t th e dro p zone are i

n a n are adenote d a s "non-aviation " i nth e Airpor

t Layou t Pla n (Respondent' s exhibi t

12) . A n examinatio n o f

the exhibi t

itsel f show s tha t the are afo

r th e drop zone an

d supportin g structure s i s nort h o f th e "non-aviation " are awher e non-aviatio n businesse s currentl y hol d lease s and th e Cit

y i s dumping trash . The are afo r th e drop zon e an

d propose d building s i s clearly marke d "aviatio n reserve" . Respondent' s misrepresentatio n here , an

d again , late

r regardin g th e fue

l discoun t an d liabilit y insurance , should no t b e overlooke d eve

n though Complainan

t i s dismissin g it s claimo f

violatio n regardin g it s desir e to erec t building s adjacen

t t o th e drop zone . B . Paragraph 3 5 o f

Respondent' s Answe

r assert s tha

t Cit y offere d adiscoun

t fo r fue l purchase s o f

300 gallon s "i n asingl e purchas e fro mth e Airport' s je t

fue l truck" . Responden

t ha s onl y asserte d th e singl e purchas e conditio n o n th e discoun

t in it s Answer . I

n th e promise s b

y th e airpor t manage r to th e principa

l o f Skydive Sacramento , Pa

t Garcia , regardin g th e discount , no suc h limitatio n o

r conditio n wa s mentioned . Whe n Cit y publishe d it s Januar

y 200 9 newsletter , th e Lo g Pile , announcing th e discount , n o suc h conditio n wa s state d (exhibit 7 to th e Complaint) . Whe n Pa t Garci amad

e numerou s telephon e call s t o th e airpor t manage r (non e o f which wer

e eve r answere d o

r returned ) regardin g th e discoim t and followed u

p v^t h a n email t o th e airpor

t manage r which wa s als o no t

answere d (exhibit

31) , th e airpor

t manage r di d no t tak e th e opportunit y to tel l Mr . Garci atha

t purchase s ha

d to b e mad

e 30 0 gallon s a

t atim e a s opposed to i n on e day . A s se t ou t in th e Complaint , Responden t regularly purchase s mor

e tha n 300 gallon s i

n a da y a s i t carrie s skydiver s aloft . Ther e ar e n o aircraf

t currentl y base d on th e Airpor

t tha t ca n hol d 30 0 gallon s o f

fuel . A n interpretatio n o f

afue l purchas e discoun

t tha t disqualifie s ever

y aircraf t base d on th e Airpor

t i s ludicrous , unles s i t

i s confirmatio n o f

unwritten Cit

y policie s t o not suppor t aeronautica

l user s base d on th e Airport .A s Responden t provide d no evidenc e t

o counte r it s ow n newsletter , th e economi c har m suffere d by Complainan

t du e to Respondent' s discriminator y treatment

on th e fue l discoun t mus t b e taken a s establishe d and th e veracit y o f Respondent' s othe

r denial s place d in question . I t shoul d b e furthe

r note d tha t Responden

t confirmed tha

t Complainan

t i s one o f th e larges t fue l purchaser s on th e Airpor

t but tha t th e larges t

user s ar e no t base d on th e Airport . I

t i s atellin g commen

t regardin g th e economi c healt h o f th e aeronautica

l enterprise s base d on th e Airpor t and areflectio n o f

th e attitude o f

managemen

t o f th e Airpor t in tha t the home-based businesse s ar

e wea k enoug h tha t the y d o no t purchas e mor

e fue l tha n transient operators . I

n th e cas e o f Complainant , it s fue

l purchases , an

d revenu e to th e City , ar

e expecte d to significantl

y increas e i f and whe n th e Cit y remove s unreasonabl e an d unattainabl e restriction s on i t an d i t ca n us e th e airpor

t drop zone . C . Paragrap h 4 8 o f

Respondent' s Answer , begin s afascinatin g exercis e i n evasio n regardin g commercia

l genera l liabilit y insurance . To star

t with . Complainan

t carrie s all o f

th e insiiranc e require d b

y th e Cit y excep t fo r acommercia

l genera l liabilit y polic y tha

t include s coverag e fo

r skydiving operations . Eac h o f th e thre e version s o f

th e draf t leas e Responden

t presente d to Complainan

t calle d fo r aspecifi c level o

f coverag e o f

"commercia

l genera l liability " insuranc e tha

t include d coverag e fo

r skydiving . A s ma

y b e see n fro mth e exhibit s provide d b

y Complainan

t (e.g . exhibi t 20 t o th e Complaint

) and i n th e Complain

t itself . Complainan

t repeatedl y pointe d ou

t to th e Cit y tha t suc h coverag e fo

r acommercia

l skydiving operator

simpl y did no t exist . Th e Cit y wa s awar e o f th e absenc e o f

an y coverag e fo

r acommercia

l skydiving operator

an d yet , i n th e discussion s between counsel fo r th e Cit y and fo r Complainant , th e Cit

y specificall

y refuse d toreduc e it s liabilit y insuranc e requiremen

t t o match liabilit

y insuranc e actually availabl e to a commercia

l skydivin g operator . T o thi s da y ther e i s no liabilit

y insuranc e availabl e to commercia l skydiving operator s (se e exhibit

3 0 to th e Complaint) . Suddenly , Responden

t say s tha t i t di d not really mea

n commercia

l genera l liabilit y coverag e (despit

e requirin g and gettin g such insuranc e o n th e par t o f all o f it s tenant s - see th e lease s attache d i n suppor

t o f it s Motio n to Dismiss) , i t

reall y mean t "aviatio n genera

l liabilit y insurance " (Answer , paragraph 48 , pag e 18) . Responden

t didn' t bothe r to advis e thi s tribuna

l tha t "aviatio n genera

l liabilit y insurance " i s simpl y anothe r nam e fo r "commercia

l genera l liabilit y insurance " an

d di d no t provid e an y evidenc e regardin g it s newl y discovere d insuranc e o

r tha t i t exist s to cove

r commercia

l skydiving operator s o

r i s availabl e t

o them . A s Cit y i s aware , but

choose s to ignor

e or attemp t t o evade , aviatio n insuranc e i s sold a s aproduct . Complainan

t ha s bee n dealin g wit

h th e insuranc e issu e eve

r sinc e th e first

propose d leas e wa s issue d b

y Cit y an d i s painfull

y awar e wha t insuranc e product s exist . I f ther e wer e a n insuranc e produc t

tha t provide d liabilit

y coverag e fo

r skydiving . Complainan

t would hav e purchase d i

t lon g ago . I

t would hav e adde d Cit

y a s a n additiona

l insure d to the policy (a s i

t did wit h it s automobil e insuranc e policy - Complainan t i s full y awar e tha t addin g alandlor

d a s a n additiona l insure d i s standar

d practic e and ha s no disagreemen t wit h suc h arequirement

) and would hav e als o adde d it s subcontractor s an d thi s entir e proble mwould no t

exist . Cit y canno t blithel y walt

z in and sa y tha t ther e i s really n o liabilit

y insuranc e proble

m an d then sa y tha t all Responden

t ha s to d o i s bu y "aviatio n genera

l liabilit y insurance " an

d ad dCit

y a s a n additiona

l insure d an

d everyone ca

n g o happil

y o n their wa y without producin g evidenc e tha

t suc h insuranc e exist s an

d cover s skydiving . To ad d t o th e Respondent' s Kafkaesque pleading , i n th e ver y nex t paragraph o f Respondent' s Answer , "aviatio n genera l liabilit y insurance " transmogrifie s into "Aircraf t Liabilit y Coverage " which "shoul d b e increase d to $1,000,00 0 pe r occurrence , $2,000,00 0 aggregate , an

d shoul d b e expande d to includ e coverag e fo

r bodily injury , propert

y damage , an

d an y damag e t o o

r cause d b y passengers... " Responden t di d not bothe r to provide an

y evidenc e tha t suc h insuranc e exist s o

r tha t i t i s availabl e to Complainant . Responden t purchase s aircraf

t insuranc e and i s full

y awar e tha t ther e i s no insuranc e tha

t provide s coverag e fo

r damag e cause d by passenger s in a

n aircraft . Whe

n Responden

t cam e u p wit h ne w typ e o f insurance , i t

wa s u p to Responden

t to provid e evidenc e i t

eve n exist s an d i s availabl e to acommercia l skydiving operator a t th e describe d coverag e level . A s Complainan

t ha s demonstrated , no matte r wha t nam e Responden

t trie s to com

e u p wit h to confus e th e issue , liabilit y insuranc e tha

t cover s skydivin g risk s fo

r commercia

l skydiving operator s doe s no t exist ; i t i s unattainable . Respondent , in it s Answer , di d no t addres s tha

t ver y fundamenta

l issu e o f thi s Par t 1 6 Complaint , tha

t o f requirin g unattainabl e insurance . I n it s Answer , Responden

t failed to provid

e an y evidenc e t o overcom

e th e showing o f

Complainan

t tha t ther e wa s no availabl e insuranc e coverag e fo

r commercia

l skydiving liabilit

y and , therefore . Specific Violatio n Count s A an d B o f Complainant' s Complain

t regardin g unattainabl e liabilit y insuranc e tha

t cover s skydiving fo

r commercia

l skydiving operator s an

d subcontractor s mus t

b e taken a s establishe d an

d judgment entere d fo r Complainan

t o n thos e Counts .D . I n severa l location s in City' s Answe r i t asserte d tha

t th e airpor t manage r an d othe r Cit y official s would no t

spea k wdt h th e principa

l o f Skydive Sacrament

o becaus e o f

alette r sen t b y Complaint' s counsel . Cit y provide d n o evidenc e to suppor t suc h aclaim . To th e contrary , counsel fo r th e Cit y repeatedly indicate d t

o counsel fo

r Complainan

t tha t ther e wa s n o restrictio n o n Cit y personne l communicatin g wit h Mr . Garcia , principa

l o f Skydive Sacramento . (Se e Complain t exhibit s 11,12 , 13 , 1 4 and 1 7 i n which counsel fo

r th e Cit y states , " I anticipat

e th e Cit y will b e contactin g yo

u in th e nea

r futur e concernin g thi s matter." ) Further , whil e Cit y assert s tha t the airpor t manage r ha d n o phone call s fro

mPa t Garcia , Mr . Garci awa s leavin g message s fo

r th e airpor t manage r regardin g th e fue

l discount , includin g following up wit h exhibi t 31 , aemail fro

mMr . Garci at o Mr . Daly . Mr . Dal y ha d numerou s chance s to tel l Mr . Garci atha t th e 30 0 gallo n fue

l discoun t wa s onl y pe r fill up , but

did not bothe r to d o so . E . City' s AF l and AF

2 assert , without

supportin g evidence , tha

t th e partie s wer

e engaged i n negotiatin g adrop zone lease . A s show n b y th e evidenc e provide d by Complainant , Cit y woul d unilaterall y issu e adraf t lease . Complainan

t would indicat

e tha t ther e wer e numerou s problem s wit

h i t and as k fo r achanc e to negotiat

e th e term s wit

h Cit y officials , eve

n going s o fa

r a s to draf t suggested language , rathe

r tha n hav e th e Cit

y simpl y issu e anothe

r versio n o f th e draf t lease . A t no time did Cit

y eve r negotiate ; i

t simpl y issue d leases . F . Responden

t di d no t provide an

y evidenc e to disput

e Complainant' s showin g o f economi c impact . Section V . o f th e Complaint , an

d thu s i t mus t b e accepte d a s established . II . Complainant' s Dismissa l o f Certai n Specific Claim s o f Violatio n b

y Responden

t A s aresult o f Respondent' s pleadings . Complainan t ha s been provide d information i t woul d hav e bee n expecte d t o receiv e ha

d Responden

t simpl y bee n willin g to sit

dow n an dnegotiat

e aleas e agreement . Fo

r example , ha

d Complainan

t bee n advise d tha

t th e aut o insuranc e requiremen

t set ou t in th e leas e wa s th e sam

e a s fo r othe r commercia

l operators , i

t would not have objecte d t o it . A s state d i n it s Complaint , th e FA

A require s tha

t Responden

t appl y "equal " standard s to commercia

l aeronautica

l enterprise s on a

n airport : Sectio n 3-12 , Administratio n o f Policy , o f FA A Orde r 5190.6A establishe s requiremen t fo r standard s tha

t ar e establishe d fo

r commercia

l operator s fo

r aeronautica

l activit y on a n airpor t s o a s to avoi d unjust

discrimination : "Suc h condition s must , however , b e fair , equal and no t unjustl y discriminatory. " (Emphasi s added) Responden

t ha s convenientl

y ignore d th e "equal " languag e in it s Answer . Nevertheless , upon reviewin g th e leas e agreement s and othe r documentatio n provide d b

y Respondent , Complainan t ha s observe d tha

t th e City' s propose d leas e doe s trea t Complainan

t equall y wit h othe r commercia

l operator s in anumbe

r o f specifi c areas . A s result , a s i t promise d in th e Complaint , Complainan

t hereby dismisse s th e following portion s and cause s o f actio n o f it s Complaint : A . Specifi c Violation s section s C . an d E . regardin g automobil e insurance . Th e requiremen

t fo r automobil e insuranc e appear s to b e applie d equall y among commercia

l operator s and i s attainable . B . Specifi c Violation s sectio n H . regardin g Rent . Cit y ha s demonstrate d tha

t othe r lessee s wh o ar e o n the airpor

t in alocatio n wher

e building s (othe

r tha n temporary ) ma

y no t b e erecte d ar e treate d equall

y wit h Complainant . C . Specifi c Violation s sectio n I . regardin g Leas e Term . D . Specifi c Violation s sectio n K . regardin g Use . Complainan t offere d to hav e th e drop zon e b e use d fo

r ho t ai r balloo n launche s a s awa

y o f hel p defus e th e ongoing figh

t betwee n th e airpor t manage r and ho t ai r balloonist s wh

o ha d bee n usin g th e airpor

t ove r launch sites , an

d to provid e additiona

l are afo r helicopte r practice , but

dismisse s thi s sectio n o f

it s Complaint . 8Th

e materia l provide d b

y Cit y regardin g sewe

r hooku p and building s i s adequat

e fo r Complainan

t to dismis s it s claimregardin g erectin g buildings , although Complainan t stil l desire s to mak e along ter

mcapita l improvemen

t i n th e for mo f building s to suppor

t th e drop zone . E . Specifi c Violation s section s L , M . an d N . regardin g Indemnit

y an d Time . The lease s provide d b

y Cit y sho w tha

t i t treat s commercia

l operator s equall

y in thi s regard . Complainan

t retain s an d continue s t o pursue al l claim s o f violatio n b

y Responden

t i t ha s not specificall y dismissed . III . Answe

r i n Oppositio n to Respondent' s Motio n t o Dismis s I n it s Memorandu

mi n Suppor t o f Respondent' s Motio n to Dismiss , Responden t spend s som e tim e reiteratin g th e la

w o n burden o f

proo f i n aPar t 1 6 action . Neithe

r part y disagree s tha

t th e Complainan

t ha s th e initia

l burde n o f proo f in thi s matter . Th

e case s poin

t ou t tha t onc e Complainan

t ha s me t it s initia l burden o f

proof , th e burden shifts t o Respondent . A s reference d i n th e case s cited , th e standar d fo r meetin g th e burden o f

proo f i s preponderanc e o f

th e evidence . Ther e i s n o "beyond areasonabl e doubt " standar d a s i n acrimina

l action ; ther

e i s no supe

r o r elevate d burde

n o f proo f A s will b e see

n below . Complainan

t ha s met it s burde n o f proo f on it s claim s i t ha s no t dismissed . A . Unattainabl e Insurance . Complain t section s A . B . an

d D . A s se t fort h i n th e Complain

t and discusse d above , th e draf t drop zon e leas e require s Complainan

t and it s subcontractor s to provid e commercia

l genera l liabilit y insurance . Sinc e thi s Complain t wa s filed. Complainan

t ha s foun d tha t i t ca n ad d it s subcontractor s to it s insuranc e policie s which nam

e th e Cit y a s a n additiona

l insured , thu s Complainan

t and it s subcontractor s are , together , abl e to compl y wit h City' s insuranc e requirement s whe n suc h policie s and level s o fcoverag e ar

e availabl e fo

r purchase . Therefore , fro

minformation currently availabl e t o Complainant , th e insuranc e requirement s affec t Complainan

t an d it s subcontractor s equally . Th e proble mtha t canno t b e avoide d by evasiv e languag e o r creativ e title s fo

r nonexisten

t insuranc e lie s whe

n th e airpor

t sponso r establishe s requirement s fo r atyp e o f insurance , and/o

r level o f coverage , tha

t i s unattainable . Simpl

y put , i t i s th e perfect

strategi c loophol e through which a n airpor t sponso r tha t want s to kee

p ause r i t doesn' t desire , but

wh o meet s all th e safet

y requirements , of

f o f a n airport . Th

e implication s fo

r aeronautica

l user s o f federally-funded U.S . airport s ar e frightening. Th e Cit y ha s happily taken hundred s o f thousand s o f

dollar s fo r gran t mone y and , i n s o doing , promise d to compl

y wit h federa l statue s an

d Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s regardin g airpor t access . Th e Cit y agree d tha

t i t would no t gran t exclusiv e right s to user s o f th e airpor t unde r 4 9 u s e §40103(e) . Th

e FA A publishe d it s guideline s on complianc e wit h th e Cod e a s well a s it s regulation s (FA

A publishe d interpretation s o f it s ow n regulation s ar

e bindin g unles s demonstrate d to b e frivolous ) in A C 150/5190-6 . I

n Sectio n 1.

2 i t make s i t blindingly clea

r tha t a n airpor t sponsor' s policy , action s o r requirement s tha

t hav e th e effec

t o f prohibitin g a

n aeronautica

l activit y ar e in violatio n o f

th e exclusiv e rights prohibition : "A n exclusiv e right s violatio n occur s whe n th e airpor

t sponso r exclude s others , eithe

r intentionally o

r unintentionally , fro

m participatin g i

n a n on-airpor

t aeronautica

l activity. " Whethe r aliabilit y insuranc e requiremen

t i s written int

o aCity' s municipa

l cod e o r jus t int o alease , if

i t i s i n violatio n o f

the statute s an

d gran t agreement s unde

r which th e Cit

y receive d airpor

t fimding, i t

canno t stand . FA

A Orde r 5190.6A , 4 9 US C §§4710

7 and 40103(e )

1 0and th e City' s gran t obligation s mak

e i t clea r tha t standard s fo

r commercia

l operator s mus t

b e "relevan t to th e propose d activity , reasonably attainabl e and uniforml y applied" . Unattainabl e canno t

eve n remotel y b e considere d to b e reasonabl y attainable . Th e drop zone lease , a s written , require s commercia l genera l liabilit y insuranc e tha

t cover s skydiving . Complainan t ha s presente d uncontroverte d evidenc e tha t suc h insuranc e doe s not exis t fo r commercia

l skydivin g operations . Responden

t ha s not disagree d tha

t a n unattainabl e insuranc e requiremen t violate s the Code , Federa

l Aviatio n Regulation s and gran t requirements . Instead , Responden t attempt s t o claimtha t ther e really i s no problem , becaus e i t di d no t actually mea

n commercia

l genera l liabilit y insuranc e (a s i

t di d i n th e lease s wit

h th e othe r commercia

l operator s o n th e airport) , instea d i t mean t somethin g else . First , i n it s Answer , i t use d differen

t phrase s fo

r liabilit y insuranc e coverage , describe d above . Then , i n it s Motio n to Dismiss , realizin g tha t i t di d no t hav e agood argumen

t on th e unattainabl e insuranc e issue , moved i t to th e en d o f it s brief , an d sai d (a t pag e 14) : "Skydive' s aircraf

t liabilit y coverag e shoul d b e increase d to $1,000,00 0 pe

r occurrence , $2,000,00 0 aggregate , an d should b e expande d to include coverag e fo r bodily injury , propert

y damage , and an y damag e to o

r cause d b y passengers , an

d th e Cit y shoul d b e liste d a s a

n additiona

l insured " a s if i t wer e merel y amatte r o f tweakin g Complainant' s aircraf t liabilit y coverag e to solv e th e nigglin g littl e issu e o f

liabilit y insurance . Afte r th e tw o ne

w phrase s Responden

t create d fo r liabilit y insuranc e in it s Answer , th e nex t stra w i t reache s fo r i s achang e to a

n aircraf t insuranc e policy , a s if

i t coul d magicall

y b e transforme d t

o cove r skydivin g risk s and new coverag e limit s set . I f onl y i t wer e tha t easy . 1 1Onc e again . Responden t provide d no evidenc e tha

t suc h insuranc e coverag e exist s o r ca n b e purchase d b

y Complainant . To reiterate , Skydive Sacrament o ha s searche d th e insuranc e marke t fo r liabilit y insuranc e coverag e tha

t will cove r it , a s acommercia

l skydivin g operation , fo

r skydiving . Suc

h insuranc e doe s no t

exist . Insurer s sell insuranc e products . Cit y recognize s thi s and , i

n al l o f it s commercia

l lease s on th e airport , require s th e commercia l operator to can y aspecifi c insuranc e product , commercia

l genera l liabilit y insurance . I

t cover s th e operator

fo r liabilit y and , by namin g th e Cit y a s a n additiona

l insured , cover s th e Cit

y fo r th e sam e liabilit y risk. Ther e i s n o insuranc e produc t

tha t cover s acommercia

l skydiving operator

fo r liabilit y fo r skydiving . Th

e Cit y i s awar e o f this . Complainan

t provide d evidenc e o f

thi s tha t th e Cit y ha s no t disputed . Complainan

t ha s purchase d al l o f

the othe r insuranc e th e Cit

y requires , th e remainin g requiremen

t i s unattainable . No w Cit y i s tryin g to put

u p amovin g target

t o confus e th e issue . Complainan

t carrie s aircraf

t insuranc e a

t th e highes t

level o f coverag e i t

ha s bee n abl e to buy . It carrie s automobil e insuranc e a t th e level demanded b

y th e Cit y an d meet s all o f

th e City' s insuranc e requirement s othe r tha n commercia

l genera l liabilit y insuranc e tha

t cover s skydiving . It

i s no t tryin g t o avoi d buyin g liabilit

y insuranc e tha

t cover s skydiving ; th e insuranc e doe s no t exist . Thi s tribuna

l shoul d se e through Respondent' s attemp t to confus e th e issu e wit

h a bogu s compromis e fo

r nonexisten

t insuranc e coverage . Cit y ha s name d afe

w othe r type s o f "insurance " tha

t i t say s will satisf

y it . However , onc e Complainan

t me t it s burde n o f proo f i n showing tha

t ther e i s n o availabl e liabilit

y insuranc e fo r skydivin g operator s tha

t cover s skydiving , th e burden o f proo f switche d t

o th e Cit y to 1 2produc e evidenc e tha t suc h a n insuranc e produc t

tha t meet s th e municipa

l ordinance , by an

y name , exist s an

d i s obtainabl e b

y Complainant . Cit

y ha s failed to mee

t it s burden o f

provin g tha

t ther e i s a n attainabl e insuranc e produc t tha t meet s th e requirement s o f

th e municipa

l ordinanc e an d th e drop zon

e Lease . Complainan

t i s entitle d t

o a n Orde r fro mthe FA A statin g tha

t a n airpor t sponsor , th e City , ma y no t plac e arequiremen

t fo r unobtainabl e insuranc e and/o r level s o f coverag e o

n Complainant , a

n aeronautica

l use r o f th e Airport , fo

r i t o r it s subcontractors , a s aconditio n o f leasin g an d usin g th e drop zone on th e Airport . B . Requiremen

t Tha t No Lessee s O

n th e Airport , Othe

r Tha n Complainant , Pa

y Fo r th e City' s Liabilit

y Insurance . Complain

t Sectio n F . Responden

t purchases , an

d keep s in force , apolic y o f airpor t liabilit y insurance . Th

e insuranc e cover s anumbe

r of , but not all , possibl e aeronautica

l activitie s on th e Airport . I t cover s som

e aeronautica

l activitie s tha

t d o not tak e plac e o n th e Airport . Responden

t ha s produce d copie s o

f al l o f it s lease s wit

h all o f th e commercia

l an d noncommercia

l operator s o

n th e Airport . Together , thes e operator s and lessee s ar e involved i n a variet y o f aeronautica

l activitie s fro

mhanga r constructio n an

d renta l throug h flight

training , aircraf t maintenance , and aircraf

t sales , to nam

e some . Not

asingl e one o

f the mha s t o pa y fo r th e airport' s insuranc e tha

t cover s it s particula

r aeronautica

l activity . Whil e th e Airpor t keep s trac k o f the variou s activitie s on th e Airport , i t ha s not see n fit to charg e an

y aeronautica

l user , commercia

l or otherwise , fo

r it s shar e o f th e City' s liabilit

y insurance . Cit

y ha s ha d year s t o d o so . Now , fo

r th e first tim e i n it s history , despit

e th e fac t tha t ther e ha s bee n skydiving o n th e airpor t in th e past , th e Cit

y ha s decide d to identif

y on e particula r aeronautica

l enterpris e to b e dunned fo r th e City' s insurance . Complainan t ha s been single d out

fo r th e honor . 1 3Atkin Air , th e larges t Fixe d Bas e Operator

o n th e airpor

t ha s gone ou

t o f busines s i n th e las t fe w weeks ; ye

t ther e i s no indicatio n tha

t th e Cit y i s going to see

k t o sav e mone

y o n it s liabilit y insuranc e by buyin g insuranc e tha t doe s no t provid e coverag e th e activitie s Atki n Ai r undertoo k tha t ar e no longe r bein g carrie d out

on th e Airport . Ultralight s ar

e arelatively recen

t aeronautica

l use r o f th e Airport , ye

t ther e i s no indicatio n tha

t th e Cit y charge d themwhe

n th e Cit y obtaine d liabilit

y coverag e tha

t include d ultraligh t us e on th e Airport . I n it s Motio n to Dismiss , Responden t took som e tim e t o set ou t th e difference s betwee

n th e commercia

l operator s an

d lessees , aviatio n an

d non-aviation , on th e Airpor t a s abasi s fo

r wha t i t sai d wa s legitimat

e economi c discriminatio n base d on siz e and/o r capita l improvements . Th e Cit y asserte d tha

t i t treate d each commercia

l operator o r lesse e tha t fit int o aparticula

r categor y th e same . While th e issue s regardin g suc h economi c behavior

hav e been mooted b

y th e dismissal s o f

specifi c allegation s o f

violation s by Complainant , i f Responden

t i s hear d to mak e argument s o f

legitimat e discriminatio n base d on siz e o f commercia

l operatio n o

r lessee' s capita

l investmen t in th e airport , the

y shoul d soun

d hollo w here , wher

e no matte r ho w Complainan

t i s compare d to th e othe

r commercia

l operator s o

r leas e holder s o

r aeronautica

l user s o f th e Airport , i t i s no w th e onl

y on e single d ou

t fo r special , unfair , treatment . Complainan

t i s entitle d t o equa

l treatmen t wit h othe r aeronautica

l user s o f th e Airpor t unde r 4 9 US C § § 4710 7 and 40103(e) , Sectio n 3-12 , Administratio n o f Polic y o f FA A Orde r 5190.6 A an d th e gran t assurances . Ever

y singl e typ e o

f aeronautica

l us e on th e airpor

t create s som e risk fo r the City , a s wel

l a s abenefit . Complainan

t ha s ye t to find asingl e cas e i

n which a n airpor t sponso r ha s bee n hel d liabl e fo

r askydiving acciden

t o r incident ; an

d Responden

t ha s not

1 4produce d suc h acase . To focu s on one particula r aeronautica

l use r t o pa y fo r aportio n o f

th e City' s insuranc e premium , i s to trea t tha t use r i n a n unequa l fashion n o matte

r wha t th e premium . C . Unequa

l Leas e Recitals . Complain t Section G . Skydive Sacramento' s Complain t se t ou t th e gratuitously insultin g "Recitals " i n th e preambl e to th e draf

t lease , notabl

y item s C , D , E , F , G and H . The y refe r to someone' s estimat

e o f expecte d us e level s o f

th e Airpor

t and areminder , tru e fo

r an y aeronautica

l use r o f an y sort , commercia

l operator , transien

t pilo t o r hanga r lessee , tha

t if th e person doe s no t

compl y wit h safet y rules , he , sh

e o r i t ca n b e tosse d of

f th e Airport . Interestingly enough , a s Complainan t suspected , suc

h recital s d

o no t appea r on an y o f th e othe r lease s between th e Cit

y an d aeronautica

l o r non-aviatio n lessee s o

n th e Airport . Cit

y ha s mad e i t glaringl y clea r wit h th e recitals , beyond th e simpl e economi c discriminatio n outline d b y Complainant , tha

t Skydive Sacrament

o an d it s customer s ar

e no t welcom e o n th e Airpor

t an d if the y ar e going to b e ther

e the y ha d bette r jus t shuffl e quietly to th e bac

k o f th e aeronautica

l bu s an d no t caus e an y problemfo

r their betters . Onc e signed , th e leas e between th e partie s her e will becom

e apubli c document . Potentia l customer s o f

Skydive Sacrament

o will see tha

t the Cit y ha s place d recital s on thi s leas e tha t i t ha s wit h no othe r lessee ; recital s tha

t strongl y impl y tha t Complainan

t i s unsaf e an d unwelcom

e o n airpor t an d migh t b e kicke d of

f a t an y time . Complainan

t face s stron g competitio n fro mothe r skydiving operation s i

n th e area . To plac e suc

h recital s i n the leas e would obviousl

y hav e a n advers e competitiv e effec

t Complainant . Fo r th e shockingl

y unequa l treatmen t o f Complainant , fo

r th e violation s outline d i

n th e Complaint , Complainan

t i s entitle d to a

n Orde r strikin g th e reference d recital s froman y leas e between Complainan

t and Respondent . 1 5D . Irreconcilabl e Leas e Inconsistencies . Complain t Sectio n J . It appear s fromCity' s Motio n to Dismis s tha t i t i s amenabl e to amendmen

t o f Section 5 o f th e draf t leas e a s i t recognize s tha

t settin g fort

h anumbe r o f specifi c operatin g requirements , regulation s an

d practice s in th e Leas e itself , a s the y exis t a t th e tim e o f th e Lease , provide s a potentially fata

l inconsistenc y wit

h Section 8 o

f th e Leas e requirin g complianc e v/it h al l applicabl e law s an

d regulations . Sectio n 8 o f

th e leas e appear s i

n virtually identica

l for mi n all o f th e airpor t leases . Complainan

t ha s absolutely n o objectio n t o Section 8 o

r it s wording . Nothin g remotel

y simila r to Sectio n 5 appear s i

n an y o f othe r th e Airpor

t leases . Ther e ar e numerou s rules , regulations , statutes , agreement s and goo d operatin g practice s tha t appl y to al l aeronautica

l user s an d all lessee s o

n th e Airport . Sectio n 8 cover s th e waterfront . Charitably , perhap s in amisguide d attemp t to b e redundant . Responden t installe d Section 5 i n th e Leas e eve

n though i t i s covere d b

y Sectio n 8 . A s outline d i

n th e Complaint , th e document s reference d i

n Sectio n 5 ar

e o f th e sor t expecte d to b e amended ove r time . Onc e amended . Complainan

t canno t compl y wit h th e amended versio n withou t bein g i n violatio n o f Section 5 o f

th e Lease , wdt

h obviou s economi c effect ; Complainan t woul d b e kicked of

f o f th e Airport . Responden

t ha s propose d additiona

l wordin g to Sectio n 5 to avoi d futur e noncompliance . Th

e simple solutio n i s to strik

e th e redundan

t an d unfai r sectio n o f th e Lease . Becaus e Sectio n 5 o f

th e Leas e i s anothe

r exampl e o f

blatantly unequa

l an d discriminator

y treatmen t o f Complainant , an

d becaus e i

t appear s i n no othe r Leas e on th e Airport , th e appropriat

e respons e fo

r a n Orde r declarin g i t

to b e in violatio n a s outline d i n th e Complain t and strikin g i t

fro mth e Lease . 1 6IV . Conclusio n

Fo r th e reason s state d above . Complainan t respectfull y request s tha t Respondent' s Motio n t o Dismis s b e denie d an d a n Orde r entere d declarin g tha t

Airpor t standard s fo

r a commercia l aeronautica l enterprise s tha t ar e not attainable , notabl y liabilit y insurance , ar e i n violatio n o f

4 9 US C § § 47107,40103(e ) an d a n airpor t sponsor s gran t

assurance s an d prohibitin g Cit y fro mimposin g liabilit y insuranc e requirement s o n Complainan t an d it s subcontractor s tha t ar e unobtainable ; thu s strikin g th e portion s o f Sectio n 1 1 o f

th e Leas e regardin g skydivin g commercia l genera l liability coverage an d polic y limit s tha t ar e no t available . Complainan t furthe r seek s a n Orde r

confirmin g th e term s o f

Sectio n 3-1 2 o f

FA A Orde r

5190. 6 A implementin g 4 9 US C § § 47107,40103(e ) an d gran t assurances , tha t

condition s o n thos e wh o engag e i n commercia l aeronautica l enterpris e o n a n airport b e treate d equally , and/o r prohibitin g Cit y fro mimposin g term s i n th e followin g Leas e sections: 1 I.e . (Complainan t t o pa y fo r City' s liabilit y insuranc e for

it s specifi c aeronautica l activit y an d Recital s C , D , E , F , G an d H . Finally , Complainan t

seek s a n Orde r

requirin g tha t

City ente r

int o aleas e wit h Complainan t withi n thirty day s tha t i s i n complianc e wit h th e Order(s ) th e FA A issue s i n thi s matte r an d th e City' s gran t assurance s an d tha t

Cit y tak e n o retaliatory actio n agains t Complainan t

fo r filing thi s Complaint . Respectfull y submitted , Richar d J . Durden , Attorne y a t La w Attorne y fo r

Complainan t

Dated : AjoAr A J ^ ^'^< ^ By : ^^_/^^ig^i ^ Durde n 2t'987^ichmon d Hil l Roa d Conifer , Colorad o 8043 3 (616)901-6515 6 1 7CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I hereby certif

y in accordanc e wit

h 1 4 CF R Par t 16.15(a ) tha t toda y I served th e foregoin g Complainant' s Consolidate d Repl y to Respondent' s Answe

r (T o Complaint

) an d Answe r i n Oppositio n to Respondent' s Motio n to Dismis s on th e following person s a t th e following addresse s by Unite d State s Posta l Servic e Expres s Mail : Scot t P . Lewi s Anderso n & Kreiger , LL

P On e Cana l Park , Suit

e 200 Cambridge , MA . 0214 1 Office o f th e Chie f Counse l FA A Par t 1 6 Airpor t Proceeding s Docket AGC-61 0 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S

W Washington , D.C . 2059 1 ^t h Date d thi s 30" " da

y o f September , 200 9 har d J . Dj f " Fo r Comp^wnan

t

1 8