SERVED: APRIL 7, 2014 

--:; ~T r··: - :.'_ ~ ;__\~ .. 

In The Matter Of: 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

) 

;· 

: ;:, .. -

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0853 

MARY E. BOCHIARDY 

Case No. 2011EA170066 

Respondent ) 

ORDER DENYING THE FAA'S MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONDENT'S 

RESPONSE TO AGENCY'S MOTION TO DISMISS 

On January 17, 2014, the FAA served the Respondent with a Complaint. That same day, 

on January 17, 2014, the FAA served the Respondent with a Motion to Dismiss Late-Filed 

Appeal ("Motion to Dismiss"). 

On January 24, 2014 the FAA filed both the Complaint and the Motion to Dismiss with 

the Office of Hearings ("OH"). 

On January 29, 2014 a Notice of Assignment of Proceedings was filed, assigning this 

case to the undersigned. 

On February 20, 2014, the prose Respondent, Ms. Mary E. Bochiardy ("Respondent"), 

filed a Response to Agency's Motion to Dismiss Late-Filed Appeal ("Response to Motion to 

Dismiss"). This Response had been served on the FAA nine days earlier, on February 11, 2014. 

On February 24, 2014, the FAA filed the Agency's Motion to Strike Respondent's 

Response to Agency's Motion to Dismiss Late-Filed Appeal ("Motion"). This Motion had been 

served on the Respondent on February 21,2014, 

On March 4, 2014, the Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss Agency's Motion to Strike 

Respondent's Response to Agency's Motion to Dismiss Late-Filed Appeal ("Response"). This 

Answer to Motion had been served on the FAA on February 25, 2014. 

I. Brief Discussion and Analysis 

The FAA's Motion to Strike raises two issues: 1) Whether the Respondent's Response 

the FAA's Motion to Dismiss was timely filed; and 2) If not, whether the Respondent has shown 

good cause for the untimely filing. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.218(d) states in part, "Any party may file an answer ... not later than 10 

days after service of a written motion on that party." 14 C.F .R. § 13.211 (e) states, "Whenever a 

party has a right or a duty to act or to make any response within a prescribed period after service 
' 

by mail ... 5 days shall be added to the prescribed period." "Absent good cause, time periods 

under the Rules ofPractice are to be strictly construed." In re Evans Air Corporation, FAA2001-9000, Order ofCALJ at 4 (Aug. 28, 2001); (Mot. Strike 3.) 

The FAA served the Respondent by mail with its Motion to Dismiss on January 17, 2014. 

Therefore, according to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.218(d), the Respondent's Response 1 was due on or before 

February 3, 2014. 2 However, the Respondent did not serve her Response to the FAA's Motion 

to Dismiss until February 11, 2014. Therefore, the Respondent's Response was untimely filed. 

Having determined that the pro se Respondent's Response to the FAA's Motion to 

Dismiss was untimely filed, the next question is whether the Respondent has shown good cause 

for the untimeliness. 

The prose Respondent pointed out that the FAA's Motion to Dismiss and its Complaint 

were served in the same package. The Motion to Dismiss did not contain any time period for 

response. However, the last page of the Complaint instructed the Respondent to serve a written 

answer to the Complaint within thirty days after the date shown on the Certificate of Service. As 

a result, the Respondent believed that she also had thirty days to file an answer to the Motion to 

Dismiss. (Response,4.) 

Good cause for late filings has been found when "respondents may have been confused 

by technical requirements of these proceedings." In re Robert W Wiedle, FAA Docket No. 

CP99WP0015, Order of Acting Chief ALJ (Jan. 6, 2000). Unlike the rules for answering a 

Complaint, the requirement of 14 C.P.R.§ 13.218(d) required the Respondent to file a response 

to the FAA's Motion to Dismiss within 10 days of service. 

It was undisputed that the FAA tried to be helpful, and provided the Respondent with a 

printed copy of the Rules of Practice when it served her with its Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty 

(Mot. Strike 2, Ex. B). However, it is a rare pro se litigant who would know that such rules, sent 

in a different mailing, would also be applicable to the January 17, 2017 materials. Reading and 

applying the law, and knowing the reach of the rules, is not an easily acquired mastery. It has 

proven to be difficult at times even for the most seasoned litigator. 

Given the facts in this case, and absent specific and clear instructions in the January 17, 

2014 materials regarding different response times, it is understandable why the prose· 

Respondent presumed that she had 30 days to respond to everything she received in one mailing. 

1 The pro se Respondent's Response is titled as a Motion to Dismiss, and seeks to "dismiss" the FAA's Motion to 

Dismiss. Under the Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R. Part 13, subpart G, the Respondent's submission is more properly 

entitled as a Response to the FAA's Motion, since the Respondent is submitting an objection to the FAA's written 

request for dismissal. 14 C.F .R. § 13 .218( d) provides for the time period to file answers to motions. 

2 Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(d), to calculate the time for a response, take the date of service (e.g., January 17, 

2014), add 10 days (e.g., January 27, 2014), and then add an additional 5 days because service was by mail (e.g., 

February 1, 2014). However, February 1, 2014 falls on a Saturday, which is not a work day. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 

§ 13.212(c), the time period runs until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. 

Therefore, the next work day was February 3, 2014. 

Page 2 of3 
II. Conclusion 

Based on the foregoing, and pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.205(a)(8), 13.218(f)(2)(i), 

13.209, and after reviewing all relevant caselaw, regulations, statutory authority, and being fully 

advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1) The FAA's Motion to Strike Respondent's Response to Agency's Motion to 

Dismiss Late-Filed Appeal is denied. 

2) A separate Order will issue on the FAA's Motion to Dismiss. 

Attachment: Service List 

Page 3 of3 
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 0003 

Ms. Judith L. Vaughan 

Complainant's Counsel 

ONE COPY 

Office of the Regional Counsel, Eastern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3255 

fPC(: 718-995-5699 

Ms. Mary E. Bochiardy 

Respondent 

1450 Sunset Point Road 

Clearwater, FL 33755-1536 

TEL: 386-214-0414 

FPC(: NOT PROVIDED 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FPC(: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0853 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

3 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.