"^\1 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

BRAVO AVIATION, INC., 

Respondent. 

JUL - 7 2010 

•FARING DOCKET 

FAA Docket No. CP10SO0006 

FAA Case No. 2008SO090054 

(^010-03^0 

Judge Goodwin 

MOTION TO DEEM ADMITTED AND FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.209, 218, the FAA moves to deem admitted the allegations 

in the Complaint, and for judgment on the pleadings. Respondent has failed to file an Answer 

and, accordingly, the allegations in the Complaint shall be deemed admitted. The allegations in 

the Complaint are sufficient to demonstrate a regulatory violation and the appropriateness of the 

sanction. Therefore, judgment on the pleadings is appropriate. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

On April 7, 2010, the FAA issued a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, which 

proposed a penalty of $10,725. Respondent timely appealed, and the Complaint was filed on 

April 30, 2010. In the Complaint, the FAA alleged as follows: 

2. At all times material herein, Bravo Aviation, Inc. ("Bravo") was 

and is now the registered owner of N8435T, a Cessna 182B. 

3. On or about June 25, 2008, Bravo operated N8435T on a flight that 

landed at Huntsville International Airport, Alabama (HSV). 
y^ 

4. On the flight described above in paragraph 3, N8435T carried one 

passenger. 

5. On or about June 25, 2008, Bravo operated N8435T on a flight 

from HSV to Pryor Field Regional Airport, Decatur, Alabama (DCU). 

6. On the flight described above in paragraph 5, N8435T carried one 

passenger. 

7. At the time of said flights, the following discrepancies existed on 

N8435T: 

a. Severe corrosion in the left float; 

b. Severe corrosion in the right float; 

c. Crease in the firewall inboard of the left float mounting 

bracket; and 

d. Improper repair of the right float. 

8. At the time of said flights, N8435T was not in an airworthy 

condition by reason of the discrepancies listed above. 

9. At the time of said flights, the maintenance record of N8435T did 

not contain an entry for the right float repair referenced in paragraph 7(d). 

III. 

10. By reason of the foregoing facts and circumstances, Respondent 

violated the following sections of the Federal Aviation Regulations: 

a. Section 91.7(a) in that no person may operate a civil 

aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition. 

b. Section 91.407(a)(2) in that no person may operate any 

aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or 

alteration unless the maintenance record entry required by 43.9 or 43.11, as 

applicable, of this chapter has been made. 

11. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Sections 46301(a)-(d), Respondent is subject 

to a civil penalty not to exceed $11,000 for each of the violations alleged. 

12 Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty of 

$10,725 is appropriate. 

(Exhibit A at 1-2). No Answer has been filed. 
ARGUMENT 

Respondent has failed to file an Answer in this case. Therefore, each of the allegations in 

the Complaint should be deemed admitted. The allegations in the Complaint include the facts of 

Respondent's conduct, that this conduct violated §§ 91.7(a), 91.407(a)(2) of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations, and that $10,725 is an appropriate civil penalty under the facts and circumstances of 

this case. Accordingly, judgment on the pleadings is appropriate. 

Section 13.209(a) of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides that the 

Respondent must file an Answer within 30 days of the date of service of the Complaint. 

Pursuant to § 13.209(f), a Respondent's failure to file an Answer shall be deemed an admission 

of the allegations in the Complaint. 

Here, Respondent has failed to file an Answer at all, much less within 30 days of the date 

of service of the Complaint. The Complaint was served on April 30, 2010. (See Exhibit A at 3). 

The Complaint included a notice to Respondent (set out under its own bold, underlined, all 

capitals topic heading) that Respondent was required to Answer within 30 days after the date 

shown on the Certificate of Service. (See id.). Respondent signed for the copy of the Complaint 

sent through Certified Mail on May 7, 2010. (See Exhibit B). Respondent was required to file 

his Answer within thirty days of the date of service, see 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(a) - in this case, on 

or before May 30, 2010. Further, in the Judge's June 8, 2010, Procedural Order, it was reiterated 

that an Answer was required within 30 days of the date of service of the Complaint, and that 

failure to file an Answer would result in the Complaint being deemed admitted. (June 8, 2010, 

Procedural Order at 1). It has now been over 60 days since the Complaint was served and, 

therefore, over 30 days since the Answer was due. Further, it has been over three weeks since 
the Judge's Procedural Order explicitly put Respondent on notice that his failure to file an 

Answer would result in the allegations in the Complaint being deemed admitted. 

Therefore, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(f), the Judge should deem admitted the 

allegations in the Complaint. Because these allegations establish that Respondent violated 

Federal Aviation Regulations and that the sanction requested is appropriate, there are no matters 

left to try at hearing, and judgment on the pleadings is appropriate. 

CONCLUSION 

The allegations in the Complaint are due to be deemed admitted as a result of 

Respondent's failure to file an Answer. The allegations in the Complaint establish that 

Respondent's violations and the appropriateness of the sanction requested. Accordingly, the 

FAA is enUtled to judgment on the pleadings. 

WHEREFORE, the FAA respectfully requests that the Judge deem admitted the 

allegations in the Complaint, and grant the FAA judgment on the pleadings. 

Respectfiilly submitted this _ ^ day of July, 2010. 

U^^h^ 

CHRISTOPHER R. STEVENSON 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Deem Admitted and for Judgment on the 

Pleadings has been mailed this date by Regular Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt 

Requested, to the following: 

original and one copy: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

AttentionrHearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

one copy: 

Robert J. Cullen 

Bravo Aviation, Inc. 

700 Merrill Avenue 

B-350Box31 

Chino,CA 91710 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

JUL z_::^^ 

Dated 

; -3 

H 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

Bravo Aviation, Inc. 

Respondent. 

FAA Docket No. 

Judge ~ 

JUDGE NOT YET ASSIGNED 

COMPLAINT 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, hereby files its Complaint, 

pursuant to Rule 208 of the Rules of Practice (14 C.F.R. 13.208), and states as follows: 

I. 

1. On April 7, 2010, Respondent, Bravo Aviation, Inc. was advised through a Final 

Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount 

of $10,725. On April 28, 2010, the Agency Attorney received a written request for a hearing 

from the Respondent. 

II. 

2. At all times material herein, Bravo Aviation, Inc. ("Bravo") was and is now the 

registered owner of N8435T, a Cessna 182B. 

3. On or about June 25,2008, Bravo operated N8435T on a flight that landed at 

Huntsville International Airport, Alabama (HSV). 

4. On the flight described above in paragraph 3, N8435T carried one passenger. 

5. On or about June 25,2008, Bravo operated N8435T on a flight fi-om HSV to 

Pryor Field Regional Airport, Decatur, Alabama (DCU). 

6. On the flight described above in paragraph 5, N8435T carried one passenger. 

i 5 

I. -s 

AT 
7. At the time of said flights, the following discrepancies existed on N8435T: 

a. Severe corrosion in the left float; 

b. Severe corrosion in the right float; 

c. Crease in the firewall inboard of the left float mounting bracket; and 

d. Improper repair of the right float. 

8. At the time of said flights, N8435T was not in an airworthy condition by reason of 

the discrepancies listed above. 

9. At the time of said flights, the maintenance record of N8435T did not contain an 

entry for the right float repair referenced in paragraph 7(d). 

III. 

10. By reason of the foregoing facts and circumstances. Respondent violated the 

following sections of the Federal Aviation Regulations: 

a. Section 91.7(a) in that no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in 

£01 airworthy condition. 

b. Section 91.407(a)(2) in that no person may operate any aircraft that has 

undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless the 

maintenance record entry required by 43.9 or 43.11, as applicable, of this chapter has been made. 

11. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Sections 46301(a)-(d), Respondent is subject to a civil 

penalty not to exceed $ 11,000 for each of the violations alleged. 

12 Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty of $10,725 is 

appropriate. 

WHEREFORE, the Agency, by counsel respectfully requests that the Administrative Law 

Judge enter an order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $10,725. 

Respectfiilly submitted this 3<0 ^ day of April, 2010. 

original signed by 

CHRISTOPHER R. STEVENSON 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 
PLEASE NOTE: 

Pursuant to Title 14 CFR Section 13.209(a), you are required to file a written answer to this 

Complaint, or a written Motion to Dismiss if appropriate, not later than 30 days after the date 

shown on the Certificate of Service which follows. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Complaint has been mailed this date by Certified 

Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to the following: 

Bravo Aviation, Inc. 

700 Merrill Avenue 

B-350Box31 

Chino,CA 91710 

Hearing Docket Clerk (original + 1 copy) 

FAA, AGC-430, Suite 2W1000 

Wilbur Wright Building 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Ji£5 

>^R 3 0 2010 

Dated 

cc: 

ASO-7:DES:04/29/10 

F:\Admin\DES\DOTComplaints\2008SO090054.doc 
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE ^HIS SECTION ON DELIVERY 

Complete items 1,2, and 3. Also complete 

item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. 

Print your name and address on the reverse 

so tliat we can return the card to you. 

Attach this card to the bacl< of the mallpiece, 

or on the front If space permits. 

1. Article Acfciressed to: 

Bravo Aviation, Inc. 

700 Merrill Avenue 

B-350 Box 31 

Chino.CA 91710 

^ r ^ gAgent 

D Addmssee 

' Received by ( Printed Narm) C. Date of Delivery 

D. Is delivery address different from Item 1? O Yes 

If YES, enter delivery address below: • No 

3. SMvIca Type 

Kipeitffled Mall D Express Mail 

O Registered D Return Receipt for Merchandise 

O Insured Mall O C.O.D. 

4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) DYes 

2. Article Number 

(Transfer from service label) 7001 E2SD 0003 lObS 6DB5 

PS Form 3811 , Feboiary 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 10259SO2-•-"#(» ^ 

f«iovii»iiMii«r 

IXtfiBIT 

ii