### UNiTE b STATE S COUR T O F APPEAL S 

### n .C^sjRic T O

F COLUMBI A CIRCUI T 

### ^ ^ ^ _ ' ' 33

3 Constitutio n Avenue , N W |-« | f —| , H " I \

/1" ^ r~' \ Washington , D

C 20001-2866 ^ *i-.TM~'^w/L ^

3 * / £ ~ i J PHbrte : 202-216-7000 | Facsimile : 202-219-8530 ^ JU L t 8 201 1 

## HEARIN G DOCKE T AGENC Y DOCKETIN G STATEMEN T Administrativ

e Agenc y Revie w Proceeding s (T

o b e complete d b

y appellant/petitioner

) 1 . CAS E NO . 2 . DAT E DOCKETED : 07/13/201 1 3 . CAS E NAM b (lea d parties oniy)Gree n Avi^ n Managemen t ( ^ ^ Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 4 . TYP E O F CASE : | x Revie w T Appea l T Enforcemen t T Complain t , T Ta x Cour t 5 . ISJi^ S CAS E REQUIRE D B Y STATUT E T O B E EXPEDITED ? C Ye s ( ^ N o I T Yto , CIt

G SI3tUt G 6 . CASE.INFORMATION : ^ . , ^ a . Irfenlif y agenc y whos e orde ri s t o b e reviewed : Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n b . Giv e agenc y docke t o rorde rnumber(s) : p^o ^ Orde rNo . 201 1 - 9 c . Giv e date(s ) o f order(s) : Jun e 13,201 1 d . Ha s a reques t fo rrehearin g o rreconsideratio n bee n file d a t th e agency ? C Ye s ^ N o I f so , whe n wa s i t filled ? B y whom ? Ha s th e agenc y acted ? C Ye s ^ N o ' f so , when ? e . Identif y th e basi s o f appellant's/petitioner' s clai m o f standing . Se e D.C . Cir . Rul e 15(c)(2) : Gree n Aviatio n Managemen t Co. , LL C file s thi s appeal/petitio n fo rrevie w unde r5 U.S.C . 504(c ) (2) ; 1 4 C.F.R . 14.29 ; 4 9 U.S.C . 46110 ; an d 1 4 C.F.R . 13.235(a)-(c) , concernin g th e denia l o f a n r.apDlicatio n fo rfee s and , expejase s unde r5 , U.S.C . 50 4 o f the.Equa l Access.t p Justic e Ac t lEAJAJ.j n f . Ar e an y otne rcase s involvin g th e sam e underlyin g agenc y orde rpendin g i n tni s Cour t o ran y other y ^ Ye s ^

N o i f YES , identif y cas e name(s) , docke t number(s) , an d court(s ) g . Ar e an y othe rcases , t o counsel' s knowledge , pendin g befor e th e agency , thi s Court , anothe rCircui t Court , o rth e Suprem e Cour t whic h involv e substantiall y th e sam e issue s a s th e instan t cas e presents ? ^ Ye s ^

No - I f YES , giv e cas e name(s ) an d number(s ) o f thes e case s an d identif y court/agency : h . Hav e th e partie^ttempte d t o resolv e th e issue s i n thi s cas e throug h arbitration , mediation , o ran y othe r alternativ e fop^di^t e resolution ? rYe s ^ N o I f YES , provid e progra m nam e an d participatio n dates . //^ ^ Signatursj ^ Dal e •'"'V'3 . 2° " Nam e o f g^mse l jOrAppellant/Petitione rGregor y S . Winton , Esq . • AddresyOcfe^esearc h Court , Suit e 450 , Rockville , M P 2085 0 E-Mai l Greg@AviationLawExperts.co m Phon e ( 30 1 ) 294-855 0 Fa x ( 30 1 ) 294-252 5 ATTAC H A CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E Note : i f counse l fo ran y otiie rparty believe s tha t th e informatio n submitte d i s inaccurat e o rincomplete , counse l ma y s o advis e th e Cler k

withi n 7 calenda rday s by letter , wit h copie s t o al l othe rparties , specificall y referrin g t o th e challenge d statement . USC A For m 4 1 Augus t 2009 (REVISED

)li ^ "m E ^UNITE D STATE S COUR T O F APPEAL S FO RTH E DISTRIC T O F COLUMBI A CIRCUI T Gree n Aviatio n Managemen t Co. , LLC , Petitioner , V . FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATION ,

Respondent . Petitio n for Revie w

PETITIO N FO RREVIE W Gree n Aviatio n Managemen t Co. , LLC , Petitione r

herein , b y an d throug h undersigne d coimsel , hereb y files apetitio n t o thi s Cour t fo r revie w o f

afinal agenc y Orde r rendere d b y th e Administrato r o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (hereinafte r th e "FAA" ) i n Th e Matte r o f Gree n Aviatio n Managemen t Co. , LLC , FA A Orde r

No . 2011-9 , serve d o n Jtme 13,201 1 (Exhibi t 1 , attache d hereto) , involvin g th e denia l o f a n applicatio n for

attorne y fee s an dexpense s imde r 5 U.S.C . §50 4 o f

th e Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Act . Gree n Aviatio n Managemen t Co. , LL C files thi s appea l unde r 5 U.S.C . §504(c)(2) ; 1 4 C.F.R . 14.29 ; 4 9 U.S.C . §46110 ; an d 1 4 C.F.R . §§13.235(a)-(c) . Petitione r i s th e affecte d part y an d therefor e pray s tha t thi s Cour t

wil l revie w an d revers e th e FA A Administrator' s Decisio n an d Orde r (FA A Orde r

No . 2011-9 , serve d o n Jun e 13,2011 ) (Exhibi t

1 , attache d hereto) .Respectfull y submitte r

GRE < Onei Suite . Rocyille,M D 2085 0 (30 / 294-855 0 Signe d thi s 13t h da y o f July , 2011 .

# EXHIBI T 1UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINQTON , D C I n th e Matte r

of; GREE N AVIATIO N MANAGEMEN T CO. , LL C

FA A Orde r

No . 2011- 9 Docke t No . CP07EA000 3 (EAJA ) FDM S No . FAA-2007-26989 ' Served : Jun e 13,201 1 DECISIO N AN D ORDER S Th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ("FAA" ) brough t acivi l penalt y actio n agains t Gree n Aviatio n Managemen t Company , LLC , d/b/ aGree n Ai r ("Gree n Air" ) for allegedl y violatin g severa l federa l aviatio n regulations. ' Th e FA A sough t a$33,00 0 civi l penalty . Later , th e FA A withdre w it s complain t an d th e AL J dismisse d th e cas e wit h prejudic e i n accordanc e vAl h th e requiremen t

o f 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.215 . Gree n Ai r the n applie d for

attorney' s fee s unde r

5 U.S.C . § 50 4 o f

th e Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Ac t ("EAJA") . Administrativ e La w Judg e ("ALJ" ) Isaa c D , Benki n denie d Gree n Air' s

' Generally , material s filed i n th e FA A Hearing Docket

(excep t fo r material s filed i

n securit y cases ) are als o availabl e fo r viewin g a t www.regulations . gov . 1 4 C.F.R . § 13,210(e) ( 1) . ^ Th e Administrator' s civi l penalt y decisions , alon g vyit

h indexe s o f

th e deeisions , the rule s o f practice , an

d other information , ar

e availabl e o

n th e Internet

at th e followin g address : vnvw.faa.goy/about/offlcej}rg/headqucirters_offices/agc/poljidjudication/AGC400 / Civil_Penalty . I

n addition , Thomso n ReutersAVest Publishin g publishe s Federa l Aviation Decisions . Finally , th e decision s ar e availabl e through LEXI S (TRAN S library ) an d WestLa w (FTRAN-FA

A database) . Fo r

additiona l information , se e th e We

b site . ' Specifically , th e FA

A allege d tha

t Gree n Ai r violate d th e followin g regulations : (1 ) 1 4 C.F.R . § 119.5(1 ) (n o perso n ma y operat e a n aircraf t under Par t 13 5 i n violatio n of appropriat e operation s specifications) ; (2 ) 1 4 C.F.R . § 135.34 3 (n o certificat e holde r ma y us e a perso n a s acrewmembe

r unles s tha

t crewmembe

r ha s complete d the " appropriat e training) ; an

d (3 ) 14 C.F,R . §91.13(a ) (n o perso n ma y operat e a n aircraf t i n acareles s or

reckles s manne

r s o as to endange r th e lif e o r propert y o f another) .applicatio n o n th e groun d tha t th e agency' s positio n wa s substantiall y justified. " Thi s decision hold s that

a s athreshol dmatter , Green Air wa s no t a"prevailin g party " within th e meaniii g o f

the . EAJA , and therefor

e Green Air

wa s no t eligibl e fo

r a n awar do f attorney' s fees . Thus , i t

i s no t necessar y t o reac h th e issu e of

whether th e FA A was substantially justifie d i n it s prosecutio n o f th e case . Th e ALJ' s denia l o f Green Air' s applicatio n fo

r fee s i s affirmed. * I . Fact s Green Ai r i s a n on-deman daircraf

t charter compan y tha t hold s a n ai r carrie r certificat e imde r 1 4 C.F.R . Par

t 135 . I t operate dacharte

r fligh t fi-omMorristown , Ne

w Jersey , to Nassau , Bahamas , o n Decembe r 30,2005 . The aircraft' s retu mtri p on Januar y 2 , 2006 , wa s fi"omNassau , Bahamas , t o Wilmington , Nort h Carolina , an

dfi'om ther e to Morristown , Ne w Jersey , Th e FAA certificate d th e aircraft , aChallenge r CL-600 , t o transpor

t no t mor e tha n nin e passengers , an d Gree n Air' s operation s specification s authorize dus e o f th e aircraf t wit h not more than nin e passengers . Th e aircraf t ha dtw o pilo t

seat s an dajump sea

t in addition t o nin e passenge r

seats . Durin g th e flights, th e aircraf t ha do n board Captai n Daly , wh o wa s th e pilot-in-conunand , Captain DeSantis , wh o wa s th e second-in

command , nin e passengers , andaperso n whos e rol e an dstatu s were th e subject

of dispute

- i.e. , Eri n Daly , th e daughte r of Captai n Daly . Th e FA

A asserte dtha

t Ms . Dal y

A cop y o f th e ALJ' s orde

r denyin g fees an dexpense s i s attached . Gree n requests tha

t th e Administrato

r orde r furthe r proceeding s i

f necessar y fo r resolutio n o f th e case . (Applicant' s Respons e t o Orde r fo r Furthe r Brieifin g a t 1. ) Th e reques t is denied . N o suc h furthe r proceeding s ar

e necessary .was eithe r a n impermissibl e extr apassenge r or a n unqualifie dflight

attendant. ' Gree n Air' s quot e fo

r th e charter

flight include da

n "attendant " fo

r $1,600 . Th

e trip lo g prepare d b y Gree n Air' s custome r servic e representativ e liste dMs . Dal y a s "FA. " Whe n Captai n Dal y transmitte d arepor t to th e U.S . Custom s andBorder Patro l th e da

y befor e th e flight , th e repor

t liste dMs . Dal

y a s "crew. " Finally , th e custom s inspector i n the Bahama s reporte d that

there were nin e passenger s an dthre e crewmember s o

n board . II . FAA' s Civi l Penalt y Actio n Agains t Gree n Ai r O n Februar y 6,2007 , th e FA

A filed acomplain

t allegin g th e following :

• O n eac h flight. Green Ai r carrie d1 0 passenger s in violatio n o f it s operation s specifications .

• Th e load manifests , which indicate dnin e passenger s rather tha n 10 , faile d accuratel y t o describ e th e numbe r o f passenger s an dtotal weigh t of the loade d aircraft .

• Gree n Ai r

use d th e 10t

h passenge

r (Ms . Daly , Captai n Daly' s daughter ) a s aflight attendan t eve n thoug h Gree

n Air di dno t hav e a n approvedflight attendan t trainin g progra

mandMs . Dal

y wa s no t adequately trained .

• A s aresul t

o f carryin g mor

e tha n th e authorize dnumber

of passengers , operatin g withou t

th e accurate tota

l weigh t o f th e loade daircraft , an

d usin g aflight

attendant who wa s no t

appropriately trained . Gree n Air operate d th e aircraf

t i n acareles s o

r reckles s manner

s o a s t o endange

r the live s an d propert

y o f others .

• Gree n Ai r

violate d(1 ) 1 4 C.F.R , § 119.5(1 ) (n o perso n ma y operat e a n aircraf t imde r Par t 13 5 in violatio n of

appropriat

e operation s specifications) ; (2 ) 1 4 C.F.R . § 135.34 3 (n o certificat e holde r ma y us e a perso n a s acrewmembe

r unles s tha t crewmembe

r ha s complete dth e appropriate training) ; an

d(3 ) 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.13(a) (n o perso n ma y operat e a n aircraf t i n acareles s or

reckles s manne

r s o a s t o endange

r th e lif e o r property o f

another) .

• Under 4 9 U.S.C , § 46301(a)(5) , Gree n Air , i f asmal l business , i s subjec

t t o acivi l penalt

y o f n o mor e tha n $ 11,00 0 fo r eac h violation .

' Th e applicabl e regulation s d

o no t requir e atraine dflight attendan t t o b e o n board .• Unde r th e fact s andcu-cumstance s o f th e ease , acivi l penalt

y of$33,000i s appropriate . I n it s answer

t o th e complaint , date dFebruar y 9,2007 , Green Ai

r denie dthat :

• i t carrie d 1 0 passenger s in violatio n o f it s operation s specifications ;

• th e loa d manifes t

wa s inaccurate ;

• i t use d Ms . Daly a s aflight attendant ;

• i t operate d th e aircraf

t in acareles s o

r reckles s manner ; an

d

• i t i s subjec t t o acivi l penalty . Gree n Ai r asserte d th e following defenses :

• I t wa s no t require dt o establis h or

maintai n a

n approve dflight

attendan t trainin g programunde

r Par t 13 5 becaus e i t

operate daircraf

t wit h fewe r than 1 9 seats .

• Ms . Dal y wa s no t

aflight attendan t durin g th e flights andtherefor e Par t 13 5 di d no t

requir e he r to b e trained .

• Ms . Dal y wa s anon-require dcrewmembe r (i . e. , cabi n aide , custome

r servic e representative) .

• Th e jimi p sea

t occupie db y Ms . Daly wa s placarde dfo r "cre w us e only " - a s such , th e jum p sea

t wa s no t apassenge

r seat .

• Ms . Dal y wa s a

n employe e o f

Gree n Air anda s suc h wa s authorize d t o occup y th e jum p sea

t unde r 1 4 C.F.R . § 135.85. ^

• Th e loa d manifest s fo

r the flights accuratel y describe dth e numbe r o f passenger s an dtota

l weigh t o f th e loade daircraft . On Ma y 31 , 2007 , th e FA

A an dGreen Air

agree dthat , in exchang e fo r th e FA A

^ Sectio n 135.8 5 provides : Th e followin g person s ma

y b e carrie daboar da n aircraf t withou t complyin g wit h th e passenger-carryin

g requirement

s o f thi s part : (a ) A crevmiembe

r o r othe r employe e o f th e certificat e holde r ... .withdrawin g it s complaint . Green Ai r woul dsubmit

a n affidavit t o th e FA A statin g that : Ms . Dal y wa s a n employe e o f

th e company , n o compan

y record s o f

he r employmen

t presentl y existed , othe r

tha n pa y check stubs , andn o IR S or

state , ta x record s existe d a

t th e tim e concernin g he r

employment . Gree

n Ai r als o agree dno t

t o fil e a n EAJ A application , (iree n Air , however , di dno t submit th e affidavit , andth e cas e wen t forward . Green Ai r filed amotio n styled , "Motio n to Dismiss, " o n Jime 1,2007 . Gree n Ai r argue d i n thi s motio n tha

t ther e were n o genuin e issue s o f materia l fact , an dit

attached affidavits an d othe r

evidentiar

y items . Thus , it,wa s actuall y amotio n fo r decisio n unde

r 14C.F.R. § 13.218(f)(5).' ' Specifically , Green Air

argue din th e Jun e 1,2007 , "Motio n t o Dismiss " tha t Ms . Dal y wa s acabi n aid e employe e o f Green Air , no t

apassenger

omitte dfro

mth e manifest . Gree n Ai r

attache d a s exhibit s th e following :

• Tw o affidavit s o f

Captai n Jame s Dal

y attestin g that : (1 ) Ms . Daly wa s acabi n aid e whos e responsibilitieswer e no t safety-relate dbut

instea d were t o serv e foo d anddrink ; and(2 ) Ms . Daly' s weight wa s include d i n th e load manifests .

• A n affidavi t o f Ms . Daly attestin g tha

t she wa s anon-require d crewmember

i n anon-safet

y position , tha

t he r dutie s include dservin g foo d an d drink , an dtha

t Gree n Air pai dher .

• Thre e chec k

stubs , al l t o "Eri n Daly, " one date dDecembe r 7,2005 , (almos t amont h befor e th e flights), in th e amount o f $200.00 , statin g tha t i t wa s fo r " 2 days, " anothe

r date dFebruar

y 6,2006 , i n th e amoim

t o f $2,450.00 , statin g tha

t it wa s fo r "Wages,*'an dth e final on e dated Apri l 24,2006 , i n th e amoun t o f $3,150.00 , statin g tha

t i t wa s fo r * Sectio n 13.218(f)(5 ) provide s a

s follows : Th e administrativ

e la w judg e shal

l gran t aparty' s motio

n fo r decisio n i f th e . pleadings , depositions , answer s t o interrogatories , admissions , matter s tha t th e administrativ

e la w judg e ha s officiall y noticed, o

r evidenc e introduce ddurin g th e hearin g sho w tha t ther e i s n o genuin e issu e o f materia l fac t an d tha t th e part y makin g the motio

n i s entitle dt o adecisio n a s amatte r o f law .• "Fligh t Attendent

(sic). " Th

e payer wa s no t indicate do n an

y o f th e stubs , A memorandu mfro

mth e U.S . Departaient

o f Homelan dSecurity , Custom s an d Borde

r Protectio n (CBP) , indicatin g that , accordin g t o th e Genesra

l Declaratio n filedb y th e pilot s vdt h CPB , ther e were thre e cre w an d nin e passenger s o n tiie Januar y 2,2006 , flight. NTS B Safet

y Recommendatio n A-06-6 6 throug h -6 9 a t 7 (November

8,2006) , statin g that

cabi n aide s were no t

require dt o receiv e safet

y trainin g becaus e the y were no t require dcrewmembers. '

• A lette r

o f interpretatio n datedMarch 19, : 1986 , fromJoh n H . Cassady , Assistan t Chie f Counsel , Regulation s an

dEnforcemen

t Division , Offic e o f th e Chie f Counsel , FAA , to Jame s W . Johnson , Air Line Pilot s Associatio n (ALPA) , statin g tha t "person s othe

r tha n 'flight crevwnembers ' ma

y b e 'crewmembers ' i f

they are assigne ddut

y durin g flight

time. " Th e FAA filed arespons e t o th e "Motio n to Dismiss " o n Jun e 16 , 2007 , asserting tha t materia l fact s remaine d i n dispute , includin g whethe r Ms . Dal y wa s a

n employee , whethe r sh e serve d a s anon-require dcrewmember . Whethe r sh e occupie dth e jum

p seat , an d whethe r th e load manifest s include dhe r weight . Th e FA

A argue dtha

t i f Ms . Dal y wer e workin g o n th e flights, i t might hav e been a s aflight

attendant vsdthou t prope r training . Further , th e FAA asserted , ther e wa s nptiiin g t o sho w that sh e wa s no t

simpl y flying vdt h he r father t o th e Bahama s fo

r New . Year' s Eve , andth e ALJ neede dt o mak e credibilit y determination s a

t ahearing . On Jtm e 19,2007 , Green Air

filedanothe

r motio n fo r summar y disposition . Thi s motion wa s entitle d "Motio n fo r Decision, " an

di n it . Gree n Ai r asserte dincorrectly tha

t the FA A had faile d t o file arespons e t o it s "Motio n t o Dismiss. " Green Air askedthe AL J t o dismis s th e FAA' s complaint wit h prejudic e du e to th e allege dfailur e to file a

' Th e NTS B recommended, however , tha t "an y cabi n personne l o n .. . Par t 13 5 flights wh o coul d b e perceive d b y pa.ssenger

s a s equivalen t t o qualifie dflight attendant s receiv e basi c FAA-approve

d safet y training. " Id .response . O n Jun e 28,2007 , th e AL

J denie dbot

h o f Green Air' s motion s fo

r summar y disposition , rulin g that

th e material s submitte db

y (jree n Air

di dno t establis h fact s tha

t would entiti e Gree n Ai r

t o prevail . For

example , th e AL

J stated , th e receipt s showe d tha t o n thre e occasions , Ms . Daly wa s pai dfo r something , but

the y di dno t

demonstrat

e tha t sh e wa s abon afide employe e o f Gree n Air , Accordin g to th e ALJ , there remaine da disputed issu e o f

material fact

- specifically , wha

t wa s Ms , Daly'i s exac t

statu s durin

g the flights in question . Th e AL J therefor e schedule dahearin g andth e partie s pursue d discovery . O n Augus t 3 , 2007 , Gree n Ai

r requeste dreconsideratio n o f th e ALJ' s denia

l o f it s June 1,2007 , motio n fo

r summar y disposition . Attache dt o Green Air' s motio n fo r reconsideratio n wer e th e followin g exhibits :

• An affidavit

fro mElain e Hxmt

, Gree n Air' s custome

r servic e representative , i n whic h sh e averre dtha

t Ms . Daly wa s assigne dth e dutie s o f acabi n o r

flight aide t o serv e foodanddrink s t o th e passenger s an d flight

cre w andtha

t sh e wa s no t

a n unmanifeste d passenger .

• An affidavit

fro mCaptai n Charle s DeSantis , attestin g tha t Ms . Daly wa s acabi n attendant

servin g foodand . drink ;

• A n estimate o f

flight charge s fo

r Green Air' s customier, listin g $1,60 0 fo r a n "attendant. "

• Gree n Air' s flight

schedul e or

"tri p sheet, " listin g Ms . Daly a s crew .

• A CB P Electroni c Advanc e Passenge r Informatio n SystemRepor t listin g Ms . Dal

y a s crew .

• A cop y o f

a20Q 5 IR S for m109 9 listin g Gree

n Ai r a s th e payer

and Ms . Daly a s th e recipient

of "non-employe e compensation " i n th e amount o f $2,100 . Gree n Air argue d that

th e evidenc e showedtha

t Ms . Dal y wa s it s contrac t

employe e an

dserved a s acabi n aid e crewmember . I n it s FAA' s repl y t o Gree n Air' s reconsideratio n request , th e FA A attache d a newe r affidavi t fro mMs . Hiint , statin g thai

t he r first declaratio n wa s incomplet e an d tha t Ms . Dal y wa s expecte d t o b e traine dto perfor msafet y duties , no t

merel y t o serv e foo

d an d drinks . Th e FAA argue d that Ms . Daly' s exac t

statu s remaine da

n issu e becaus e o

n th e IR S For m109 9 submitte d b y Gree n Air , th e compensatio n fo

r Ms . Daly wa s labeled "non-employe e compensation. " O n Augus t 21 , 2007 , th e AL

J issue da n orde r denyin g Gree n Air' s Motion fo r Reconsideration , th e AL

J note dtha

t th e FAA' s affidavi

t o f Ms . Hun t supporte dthe FAA' s positio n an d that

in thi s affidavit , Ms . Hun

t repudiated.i n part

th e earlie r affidavi t submitte d b y Green Air , Th e AL J state dtha

t i t wa s "difficult

t o imagin e acas e les s suitabl e fo r dispositio n b y summar

y judgment. " Orde

r Denyin g Motio n fo

r Reconsideratio n a

t 1 . H e hel d that

there remaine ddispute dmateria l issue s o f fac t tha t precluded hi mfromgrantin g th e relie f Gree n Ai r sought . O n September

18,2007 , Gree

n Air movedt o preclud e Ms . Hunt' s testimon y a t th e hearing . Attache d t o it s motio n wa s a n e-mail date dAugus t

24,.2007 , fromMs . Htm

t t o on e o f th e captains . Captai n DeSantis , stating : I sai d I hav e n o ide ai f

sh e [Ms . Daly ] i s aFA , C

A o r astrippe r fo r tha t matter . An d I do' t

(sic ) car e a s tha t ha s nothin g to d o wit

h me . I don' t hire , trai n o r

otherwise . I never sai d sh e i s a[Part] 13 5 FA . I sai da s fa r a s I a mconcerne d she wa s o n boar d t o serv e foodandi f ther e i s a n i n flight issu e she would assist . Wha

t di d yo u thin k

tha t sh e woul djus t

si t there andwatch ?

.. . An d jus t

becaus e I assum

e sh e wa s ther e fo

r safety , mayb e sh

e wa s not . Tha

t wa s m y tak e o n it . Bu t in th e compan

y I a mn o one . No t priv y t o training , paychecks , or othenvise , I' mno t takin g any blam

e fo r anythin g t o do wit

h this . I di dno t

fly th e flight, i (sic ) di d no t

assig n crew nor

didI pic k th e cabi n attendant .Motipn to Preclude , Attachment 1 a t 1 . Gree n Ai r contende dthat , b y he

r ovr aadmission , Ms . Hun t di d no t kno w Ms . Daly' s statu s durin g th e flights, anda s aresult , she woul d have no relevant

o r material testimon y t o offe

r a t ahearin g a

t whic h th e centra

l issu e woul d concer n Ms . Daly' s statu s o n th e flights. Les s tha n 2 week s afte

r Gree n Ai r filed thi s motio n andabou t 2 week s befor

e th e Octobe r 1 , 2007 , schedule d hearin g date , th e FA A withdre w th e complaint . Subsequently , Gree n Ai r

move dto dismiss , andthe AL J dismisse dth e cas e wit

h prejudic e under

1 4 C.F.R . § 13.215 .

III . Attorney' s Fe e Actio n Green Air filed a n applicatio n imde

r th e EAJ A arguin g tha

t th e FA A wa s no t substantially justifie d i n filing th e complaint . Gree n Air contende dtha

t i t shouldb e awarded it s attorney' s fee s an dexpenses , whic h wer e i n exces s o f

$27,400 . O n Januar y 16,2008 , th e AL

J issue dadecisio n denyin g th e applicatio n fo r attomey' s fee s and expenses . Th e AL J state dtha

t th e existenc e o f

question s of

fac t concerning Ms . Daly' s rol e aboar dthe flights an

dher employment

relationship to Gree

n Ai r satisfie d th e EAJA' s reqidrement tha t th e agency actio n hav e areasonabl e basi s i n la w an d fact . H e furthe

r hel d tha t th e legal inquir

y andfactua

l dispute wer

e closely intertwined and satisfie d th e EAJA' s requiremen t fo r anexu s betwee n th e two . Regardin g th e weight-and-balanc e computation , th e AL J sai dtha t i t wa s imclea

r durin g th e investigator

y arid adjudicator

y phase s whethe

r Ms . Daly' s weigh

t wa s included . Ther

e wa s n o documentar

y evidenc e listin g Ms . Daly a s cre w fo r purpose s o

f th e computation . Th e AL J conclude d that

th e factua l dispute s regardin g Ms . Daly' s role , training ,an

d employmen

t status , combine dwit

h th e factua

l dispute regardmg computatio n of weigh t and balance , establishe dtha t th e FA A ha dsubstantia

l justificatio n fo

r it s action . Th e AL J rejecte d Gree n Air' s argumen t tha t th e dismissa

l compelle dth e conclusio n tha t no substantia

l justificatio n existe dfo

r th e origina

l complaint ; h e state dtha

t th e EAJ A doe s no t entitl e a n applicant

t o a n awar din an y cas e wher

e th e agenc y drop s it s charges . The questio n remaine d whether th e agenc y hadsubstantia

l justificatio n fo

r goin g forward , an d th e ALJ found tha t i t did . Green Air

filed a n appeal . Afte r considerin g th e brief

s o n appeal , th e Administrato r directe dth e partie s t

o file additiona

l brief s tha t addresse dcertai n critica

l issues , includin g whethe

r Gree n Ai r wa s aprevailin g party i n th e underlyin g case . Gree n Aviatio n Managemen t Co. , LLC , FA A Orde r No . 2010- 4 (Jun e 14,2010) . Bot h partie s filedadditiona

l briefs . IV . Discussio n Th e America

n rul e i s tha

t partie s mus t

bea r thei r ow n attomey' s fee s unles s a statut e or contrac t expliciti y authorize s fee-shifting . Hard t v . Relianc e Standar dLif

e Ins . Co. . 13 0 S.Ct . 2149,215 6 (2010) . "Numerous " federa l stattxte s autiioriz e th e awar d o f attomey' s fee s t o th e "prevailm g psaty. " Buckhanno n Boar dan dCar e Home . Inc . v. Wes t Virgini aDep t

o f Healt h an dHuma

n Services , 53 2 U.S . 598 , 60 2 (2001) . Th e EAJ A i s on e such statute that

authorize s th e shifting o f

fee s to th e "prevailin g party. " Se e 5 U.S.C . § 50 4 an d 2 8 U.S.C . § 2412 . Th e EAJ A provide s tha

t prevailin g partie s i

n certain adversaria

l proceeding s ma

y recove r attomey' s fee s fromth e Unite dStates . Th e relevan t portio n o f

th e EAJA provide s a s follows : A n agenc y that

conduct s a

n adversar y adjudicatio n shall award , to d i prevailin g part y other

than th e Unite dStates , fee s andother expense s incurre db y tha

t part y in connectio n wit

h tha t proceeding , unles s th e adjudicativ e office r o f th e agency finds tha t th e positio n o f

th e agenc y wa s substantially justifie dor tha t specia l 1 0circumstance s mak e a n awar dunjust . 5 U.S.C . § 504(a)(i ) (emphasi s added).' " Establishin g "prevailin g party " statu s i s a threshol d requirenaen

t fo r partie s seekin g fees . Hensh y v . Eckerhgrt , 46 1 U.S . 424,43 3 (1983) . th e leadin g cas e regardin g "prevailin g party " statu s unde r fee-shiftin g statute s i s th e U.S . Suprem

e Court' s decisio n i n Buckhannon . I n thi s case , Buckhannon , th e operato r of assiste d livin g facilities , suedth e Wes t Virgini aDepartment

o f Healt h an d Huma n Service s ("Wes t

Virginia . HHS") , arguin g tha t anew state requirement

violate d th e Fai r Housin g Amendment s Ac t ("FHAA" ) an

dth e American s vn\

h Disabilitie s Ac

t ("ADA") . Wes t

Virgini aeliminate dth e requirement , andth e Wes t Virgini aHH S move

d to dismis s th e cas e a s moot . Th e distric t cour t grante dth e motion . Buckhanno n the n sough t attorney' s fee s fromth e Wes t Virgini aHH S under

th e FHA A andth e ADA . Bot

h statute s permi t

acour t t o grant attomey' s fee s t o a"prevailin g party. " Th e Buckhanno n majorit

y hel dtha t th e ter m"prevailin g party " doe s no t includ e

" apart y tha t ha s faile d to secure ajudgment on th e merit s or

acourt-ordere dconsen

t decree, " even i f

th e part y ha s "achieve dth e desire dresul t becaus e th e lawsui t

brough t abou t avoluntar y chang e in th e defendant' s conduct. " Id . a t 600 . Th e Cour

t explaine d tha t t o b e a"prevailin g party, " ther e mus t b e ajudiciall y sanctione dmateria l alteratio n o

f th e lega l relationshi p o f

th e partie s an

dth e court, mus t

hav e awarde dsom

e relie f to the

' ° Th e FAA' s regulation s implementin g th e EAJ A provid e that : A prevailin

g applican t ma y receiv e a n awar dfo r attorne y fees an dothe r expense s incurre

d i n connectio n wit h aproceeding , o

r i n asignifican

t an d discrete-substantiv

e portio n of th e proceeding , unles s th

e positio n o f th e agenc y ove r whic h the applican

t has prevaile

dwa s substantiall

y justified . 1 4 C.F.R. § 14.04(a) . Althoug h Sectio n 14.04(a ) uses th e ter m"prevailin

g applicant, " rathe

r tha n "prevailin g party, " th

e regulatio n should.be intierprete

dt o confor mt o th e statut e tha t i t implements . 1 1part

y seekm g fees . Id . a

t 604 , 605 , The Cour

t noted tha t "[a ] defendant' s voluntar

y chang e i n conduct , althoug h perhap s accomplishin g wha t th e plaintif

f sough t t o achieve b y th e lawsuit , lack s th e necessar y judicial imprimatu

r o n th e change, " Id . a

t 605 . Accordin g t o th e Court , aprevailin g part y includes : (1 ) on e who ha s been awarded som

e enforceabl e judicia l relie f o n th e merit s o f

hi s or her claim ; and(2 ) on

e wh o ha s receive d relie f

throug h asettlement

agreemen t enforce dthroug h aconsen t decree . I n contrast , th e Cour

t stated , privat

e settlement s d o no t

involv e th e judicial approva l and oversigh t

involve din consen

t decrees . Id . a

t 604 , n.7 . Private settlements , the Cour t explained , ar e ofte

n unenforceabl e unles s th e orde r of dismissa l incorporate s the settlemen

t terms . Id . Th e Cour

t rejecte dthe '^catalys t

theory, " under

whic h a n awar d o f fee s woul d b e permitte d base dupo n avoluntar y chang e in conduc t

b y th e defendan

t wher e there i s n o judiciall y sanctione dchang e i n th e parties ' lega

l relationship . Id . a

t 609 . Th e Cour

t i n 5wc^a«/7on.state dtha

t give n th e clea r meanin g o f

"prevailin g party " i n th e fee-shiftin g statutes , i t wa s no t necessar y t o determin e whic h wa

y polic y argument s cut . Id . Fo r

example , th e Cour

t declinedt o addres s polic y arguinent s lik e th e followin g - i f th e Catalys t

theor y wa s no t upheld , litigatio n coul db e protracte dbecaus e partie s would b e les s likel y t o mov e to dismis s i f the y believe dthe y woul dhav e to pa y attomey' s fee s fo

r doing , so . Th e Cour

t conclude db y affirming th e lowe r court' s decision tiiat

Buckhanno n wa s no t

aprevailin g party . Th e U.S , Cour

t o f Appeal s fo

r th e Distric t

o f Columbi aCircui t

ha s set forti i the followdn g three-par

t test , base do n Buckhannon . fo r deiterminin

g whether aparty , i s a "prevailing party" :

1 2(1 ) there mus t b e acourt-ordere dchang e i n th e lega l relationshi p o f

th e parties ; (2 ) th e judgmen t

mus t b e i n favo r o f th e part y seekin g fees ; and (3 ) judicia l relie f

mus t accompan

y th e judicia

l pronouncement . Turne r v . NTSB . 60 8 F.3 d 12,1 5 (citin g Distric t o f Columbi av . Strauss , 59 0 F.3 d898 , 90 1 (D,C . Cir , 2010) , m ^ Thoma s v . National Scienc e Foundation , 33 0 F.3 d486,49 3 (D.C . Cir . 2003)) . Th e Supreme Cour

t i n Buckhannon explaine dthat "prevailin g party " i s ater

mo f art , an d tha t th e Cour t interpret s consistently th e numerou s federa l fee-shiftin g statute s tha t us e tha t terminology . Buckhannon , 53 2 U.S , a t 602 , 603 , n,4 . Followin g th e Suprem e Court' s lead , th e Federa

l circuit court s hav e applie dth e Buckhanno n prevailing

part y criteri at o other

fee-shiftin g statute s that

us e th e ter

m"prevailin g party, " including the stattit e a t issu e i n thi s case , tiie EAJ A - 5 U.S'.C . § 504 and2 8 U.S.C . § 2412. " Severa l circui t court s hav e hel dtha

t th e type s o f

relie f cite db y th e Suprem

e Cour t i n Buckhannon —/.e. , judgment s o n th e merit s an dconsent decree s - are onl y example s of th e type s o f

order s that

woul d confe

r prevailin g part

y status , assumin g tha

t sufficien t judicia l imprimatur

exists . See . e.g. . Walke

r v. Calumet

City , 56 5 F.3 d1031,103 4 (7 * Cir . 2009) ; Citizen s fo r Better Forestr y v . U.S . Dep' t

o f Agriculture , 56 7 F.3 d1128 , 113 2 (9*^01^2009) . I n th e instan t

case , th e FA

A movedfo

r avoluntar

y dismissa l o f it s complaint . Th e AL J dismisse d th e cas e wit

h prejudice , a s he wa s require dt o d o b y th e FAA' s rule s

" A cas e applyin

g Buckhanno

n t o 5 U.S.C . § 50

4 i s Turne r v. NTSB , 60 8 F.3d1 2 (D.C . Cir. 2010) . Case s applyin

g Buckhanno

n t o 2 8 U.S.C . § 241 2 include : Mav. Chertqff , 54 7 F.3d 34 2 (2'" * Cir . 2008) ; Biodiversit y Conservatio

n Allianc e v . Stem , 51 9 F.3 d122

6 (10 * Cir . 2008) ; Carbonellv . Immigratio

n and Naturalizatio

n Service , 42

9 F.3 d89 4 (9 * Cir . 2005) ; an

dThoma s V . Nationa l Scienc e Foundation , 33 0 F.3 d48 6 (D.C . Cir . 2003) . 1 3o

f practic e - specifically , 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.215 . Sectio n 13.21 5 provide s a s follows : § 13.21 5 Withdrawa l o

f complain t

o r reques t fo r hearin g At an y tim e before or

durin g ahearing , a

n agenc y attorney ma

y withdra w acomplaint

o r apart y ma y withdra w areques t

fo r ahearin g without

th e consent o f th e administrativ e la

w judge . If

a n agenc y attorney withdraw s th e complain t

o r apart y withdraw s th e reques t

fo r ahearin g andth e answer , th e administi-ativ e la w judg e shal l dismis s th e proceeding s unde r thi s subpar

t wit h prejudice . (Emphasi s added. ) Th e ALJ' s dismissal o f

th e FAA' s cas e M^it

h prejudic e here met

som e of Buckhannon* s "prevailin g party " criteria . Th e Suprem e Cour t i n Buckhannon indicated tha t obtainin g afavorabl e decisio n o n th e merit s coul dconfe r "prevailin g party " status . Som e lower court s hav e hel d tha

t adismissa

l wit h prejudice , a s i n th e instant case , i s a decision o n th e merit s becaus e i t preclude s furthe r

litigatio n - i n othe

r words , becaus e re s judicat awoul d apply . See . e.g. , Michiga n Surger y Iny. . LLC v . Arman , 62 7 F,3 d 572 , 57 6 (6 * Cir . 2010 ) ("[b]ecaus e adismissa l wit h prejudic e preclude s fiorther litigation, " i

t effectivel y reject s th e plaintiffs claimon th e merits).' ^ Th e ALJ' s orde r o f dismissa l v^dt h prejudic e effecte d amateria l alteratio n of

Gree n Air' s lega

l relationship wit

h th e FA A becaus e i f

th e FAA trie d to brin g th e sam e claimi n th e fiiture . Gree

n Air coiild rel y successfiill y o n are s judicat adefense . Further , enforceabilit y i s require dfo

r "prevailin g party " status . In Biodiversit y Conservatio n Allianc e v . Stem , 51 9 F.3 d1226 , 123 0 (lO" ' Cir . 2008) , forme

r Suprem e Cour

t Justic e SandraDa

y O'Conno r

vwot e tha t "unde r Buckhannon , a

. cour t order mus t b e enforceabl e to qualif

y tha t part y fo r attomey' s fee s a s I n contrast , adismissa

l withou t prejudic e i s no t a n adjudicatio

n o n th e merits , "a

s i t leave s th e partie s i n th e sam e lega l positio n a s i f n o sui t ha d eve r bee n filed." Cru

z v . Louisian a e x rel . Dept . o f Publi c Safet

y an dCorrections . 528 F.3 d375 , 37 9 n . 1 5 (5" " Cir . 2008 ) (quotin g Hilb mV . Goldberg , 823 F.2

d 881 , 88 3 (5 * Cir . 1987)) .

1 4aprevailin g party. " Here , th e ALJ' s dismissa l wit h prejudic e wa s enforceabl e by th e court s under

th e doctrin e o f

rejyW/cato . O n th e other

hand , Gree n Air

di dno t meet key criteri at o b e a"prevailin g party. " Th e Buckhanno n Cour

t explaine dtha

t to b e a"prevailin g party, " there mus t b e a judiciall y sanctione d aWevaXio n o f th e lega l relationship o f

th e partie s andth e cour

t must hav e awarde d som e relie f

t o th e party seekin g fees . Buckhannon , 53 2 U.S . at 604,60 5 (emphasi s added) . Th e Buckhanno n cour t state dtha t judicial imprimatur

i s necessary . Id , a t 605 . Here , whil e th e agenc y attorney' s voluntar y decisio n to discontinu e th e civi l penalt y actio n gav e Gree n Air

wha t i t wanted , th e ALJ' s orde

r dismissin g th e cas e lacked th e necessar

y judicia l imprimatur , becaus e unde r Sectio n 13.215 , th e AL

J ha dentirely no choic e or discretio n bu t

to dismis s th e cas e wit

h prejudice . See , e.g. . Highwa y Equipmen

t Co . V . FECO . Ltd

y 46 9 F.3 d 1027,103 4 (Fed . Cir . 2006) , where tiie cour t emphasize d tha

t it was th e judge' s exercis e o f discretio n tha

t gav e th e dismissa

l wit h prejudic e th e necessar y "judicial imprimatur " s o tha t th e orde r constitute da"judiciall y sanctione d chang e i n th e legal relationshi p o f th e parties " xmde

v Buckhannon . I n Turner , th e cour

t hel dtha t th e NTS B ALJ' s order

dismissin g th e cas e wa s withou t prejudic e an d di d no t

provid e administrativ e relief . Th e cour

t explaine dtha

t th e ALJ's.order

dismissin g th e cas e wa s simply a n "administrativ e housekeepin g measure " not conferrin g "prevailin g party " status , becaus e th e FA A di dno t nee dth e ALJ' s permission t o withdra w it s complaint unde r th e rule . Turner , 60S F.3 da t 16 . Althoug h Turner

involve dadismissa

l without prejudice . Turner

i s instructiv e i

n thi s cas e becaus e i n bot

h Turner andi n thi s case , th e FA

A di dno t nee dth e ALJ' s

1 5permissio n t o withdraw th e complaint

unde r th e applicabl e procedura

l rules . Th

e ALJ' s dismissa l o f th e cas e agains t

Green Ai r

wit h prejudic e di dno t

reflec t any substantiv e judicial imprimatur

becaus e Sectio n IZ.llSrequiredXh e AL J t o dismis s th e cas e wit

h prejudic e onc e th e FAA withdre w it s complaint . See . e.g. . Hutchinso n e x rel . Julie n v

. Patrick , —F.3 d — , 201 1 W L 540538 , a

t * 4 (l"Cir . 2011 ) (findingi t necessar y to determine whether

th e orde r containe dth e sor

t of judicia l involvemen

t andaction s inheren t i n acourt-ordere d consent decree) ; Bel l v . Boar do f

Count y Com'r s o f

Jefferso n County , 45 1 F.3 d 1097,110 1 (10 * Ciir . 2006 ) (finding tiiat

becaus e plaintif

f entere d int

o a privat e settlement

withou t an y judicia l involvement , h e wa s not aprevailin g party) ; Lu

m V . Mercede s Bern , 24 6 FR

D 544 , 54 7 (N.D . Ohi o 2007 ) (explainin g tiiat tiie focu s afte r Buckhannon wa s o n "th e natur e an dJudicia l involvemen t i n th e outcome , rather

tha n o n th e practica

l effect s ...." ; explainin g tha t becaus e th e judg e di dno t

"determin e o r oversee " th e dismissal , th e defendan t wa s no t a"prevailin g party" ) (emphasi s added) . V . Conclusio n Green Air wa s no t a"prevailin g party " unde

r th e Suprem

e Court' s key decisio n i

n Buckhannon becaus e th e FAA' s voluntar y chang e i n conduc t

lacke dth e necessar

y judicia l imprimatur . A s aresult , afee awar di s no t appropriate unde r

5 U.S.C . § 504(a)(1) . For

th e reason s state dabove , thi s decisio n denie s Gree n Air' s appeal. " J . RANDOLP

H BABBITT ADMINISTRATO R Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Withi n 3 0 day s o

f thi s determination . Gree

n ma y file a n appea l wit h a n appropriat

e Unite d State s Cour

t o f Appeals . 5 U.S;C . § 504(c)(2) ; 14 C.F.R . § 14.29 . Se e 49 U.S.C . § 4611 0 an d 1 4 C.F.R . § § 13.235(a)-(c) . 1 6CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E I hereb y certif

y tha t I hav e thi s date , Jul y 13,2011 , maile d on e cop y o f th e foregoin g Petitio n fo r

Revie w addresse d to : Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Roo m924 A Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Christia n Lewerenz , Esq . Offic e o f Assistan t Chie f Counse l FA A Easter n Region , AEA- 7 1 Aviatio n Plaza , Roo m56 1 Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 Tel : 718-553-325 8 Fax : 718-995-569 9 GREQORY/S . WINK>N , Esquir e One / Sujfc45 0 Rockville , M D 2085 0 (301 ) 294-855 0