V , « UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D.C . J& B ENTERPRISES , INC . d/b/a . RHYTH M SHINE , Complainant , V . METROPOLITA N NASHVILL E AIRPOR T AUTHORITY , Respondent . 

# S El ¥ AU G - 3 200 8 li G - 3 ; AIRPORT/ENVIRONMENTA L LAW , AGC-60 0 FA A Docke t

No . 16-08-0 7

—H C D

' " 1 RESPONDEN T METROPOLITA N NASHVILL E AIRPOR T AUTHORITY' S MOTIO N ^ : T O STRIK E COMPLAINANT' S UNAUTHORIZE D REPL Y T O RESPONDENT' S OPPOSITIO N T O COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N T O SUPPLEMEN T TH E RECOR D c: 3

1 . O n Jul y 27 , 2009 , Complainan t J& B Enterprises , Inc . ("J&B" ) filed a"Repl y O n Motio n T o Supplement " simultaneousl y wit h it s "Oppositio n t o Respondent' s Motion T o Strik e Ne w Issue s O n Appeal. " 2 . Responden t

Metropolita n Nashvill e Airport Authorit y ("MNAA" ) object s t o thi s unauthorize dfiling o f

th e "Repl y o n Motion t o Supplement " b y J&B , an drespectfiill y request s that th e FA A strik e th e proffere dfiling becaus e i t i s i n violatio n o f

Part 16' s prescribe d procedures . 3 . 1 4 C.F.R . Sectio n 16.1 9 provide s tha t "[a] n apphcatio n fo

r a n orde r o r rulin g no t otherwis e specificall y provide dfo r i n thi s part

shal l b e b y motion . . . . [A]n y part y ma y file a n answe r in support

o f o r i n oppositio n t o amotio n ... " provide dthat th e answe r

i s filedwithi n te nday s o f

th e mofion . 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.19(c) . Part 1 6 doe s not

allo w arepl y t o th e oppositio n t o a motion , 4 . Here , Complainan t filed aMotio n t o Supplemen t th e Recor do n Appea l o n Jul y 8 , 2009 . O n Jul y 16 , 2009 , MNA A filedit s Oppositio n T o Complainant' s Motio n T o Supplemen t Th e Recor do n Appeal . Subsequently , J& B ignore dSectio n 16.19 , an do n Jul y 2 7 200 9 filed aRepl y o n it s Motio n T o Supplemen t Th e Record , a s part

o f it s filing title dRepl y o n Motion t o Supplemen t

Th e Recor dAn dOppositio n T o Respondent' s Motio n T o Strik e Ne w Issue s O n Appeal . 5 . MNA A respectfull y request s tha t th e FA A strik e fromComplainant' s Jul y 27' ^ filing al l reference s t o J&B' s Motion t o Supplemen t th e Record . Se e Exhibi t 1 (Redline dcop y o f Complainant' s Motio n showin g portion s propose dt o b e stricken) . Part 16' s procedure s provid e fo r amotio n an da

n answer , an dn o more . Se e Order , Sept . 12 , 2007 , Lo-Yu-Su n v . Por t o f Seattle , FA A Docke t

No . 16-06-1 3 a

t p . 8 , n. 3 (attache da s Exhibi t 2 ) (holdin g tha t Complainant' s Repl y i n support o f it s motio n wa s a

n unauthorize dpleadin g an dgrantin g Respondent' s motio n t o strik e th e reply : "Sectio n 16.1 9 permit s amotio n an da n answe r to th e motion . It

doe s no t permi t areply." ) 6 . Th e FA A i s require dt o enforc e it s ow n regulations , includin g interna l procedura l regulations . Servic e v . Dulles , 35 4 U.S . 363 , 38 8 (1957) : Unite dState s ex rel . Accard i v . Shaughnessy , ZA

l U.S . 260 , 26 5 (1954 ) (agenc y regulation s prescribin g interna l procedure s hav e forc e an deffec t

o f law) . 7 . Par

t 1 6 i s intende dt o b e a

n expedite dproceeding . Se e Order , Sun v . Por t o f Seattle , (Exhibi t 2 ) a t 5 ("Part 1 6 i s a n accelerate dadministrativ e process , intende dt o expedit e substantiall y th e handlin g an ddispositio n o f airport-relate dcomplaints." ) Permittin gunauthorize dfilings woul dru n counte r t o thi s intentio n i n violatio n o f th e FAA' s ow n regulations , an dwoul dprejudic e MNA A i n it s defens e o f th e claim s agains t

it . Consequently , MNA A respectfull y request s tha t it s Motio n t o Strik e Complainant' s Unauthorize dRepl y b e granted . Respectfull y submitte dthi s 31s t da y o f July , 2009 :

Robert Watso n Metropolita n Nashvill e Airport Authorit y On e Termina l Drive , Suit e 50 1 Nashville , TN 3721 4 Telephone : (615 ) 275-163 7 Facsimile : (615)275-430 2 Arthu r P . Ber g KAPLA N KIRSC H & ROCKWEL L LL P 64 1 Lexingto n Ave . Suit e 140 9 Ne w York , N Y 1002 2 Telephone : (212 ) 328-951 5 Facsimile : (646)514-544 0

Thoma s Devin e KAPLA N KIRSC H & ROCKWEL L LL P 100 1 Connecticu t

Av e NW , Suit e 80 0 Washington , D C 2003 6 Telephone : (202 ) 955-5600X56 8 Facsimile : (202 ) 955-561 6 Lis aReynold s BCAPLA N KIRSC H & ROCKWEL L LL P 167 5 Broadway , Suit e 230 0 Denver , C O 8020 2 Telephone : (303 ) 825-700 0 Facsimile : (303 ) 825-700 5CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E I hereb y certif

y tha t I hav e thi s da y serve dth e foregoin g Motio n T o Strik e ComplainaDt' s Unauthorize dRepl y T o Respondent' s Oppositio n T o Complainant' s Motio n T o Supplemen t

Th e Recor do n th e followin g person s a t th e followin g addresse s b y overnigh t

Federa l Express : FA A Offic e o f

th e Chie f Counse l Part 1 6 Airport

Proceeding s Docket , AGC-61 0 Roo m92 5 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Origina l an d3 copie s VI A Federa l Expres s No . 796 8 260 8 716 8 Thoma s J . Henderso n Henderso n Law Firm , PLL C Suit e 35 0 142 5 K Street , N W Washington , D C 2000 5 On e Cop y VI A Federa l Expres s No . 796 8 260 9 241 0 Elizabeth Wei r Offic e o f th e Chie f Counsel , Airport s an dEnvironmenta l Law Branc h Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , SW , Roo m923- M Washington , D C 2059 1 1 courtes y cop y VI A Federa l Expres s No . 796 8 260 9 662 2

Date dthi s 7 ' da y o f July , 2009 : Lis aA . Reynold s Lisa . Counse l fo

r Responden t

MNA AUNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERAL AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D.C . J& B ENTERPRISES , INC. , d/h/a / RHYTH M SHINE , Complainant , METROPOLITA N NASHVILL E AIRPOR T AUTHORITY , Respondent . Docke t No. : 16-08-0 7

COMPLAINAN T J& B ENTERPRISES ' »EW:¥ ^ O N MOTIO N T O SUPPLEMEN T TH E RECOR D AN D OPPOSITIO N T O RESPONDENT' S MOTIO N T O STRIK E NE W ISSUE S O N APPEA L Complainan t

J& B Enterprises , Inc. , d/b/a / Rhyth mShin e (hereafte r "Complainant " o r "J&B") , b y it s counsel , hereb y respond s t o Responden t Metropolita n Nashvill e Aiipoi t Authority' s ("MNAA" ) Oppusitiu n T o Cuuiplaiiiant' j Motio n T o Supplemen t Th o Rooor

dO n Appea l An dMotio n T o Strik e Ne w Issue s O n Appeal . Fo r di e reasons outline di n J&B' s Jul y 17 , 200 9 Oppositio n t o MNAA' s Motio n fo r Immediat e Stay an da

n Extensio n o f

Tim e t o Fil e It s Reply , th e Assistan t

Administrato r

shoul ddecid e thes e matter s i n connectio n with decidin g th e appea l o f

th e Director' s Determination . Th e MNA A i s no t entide dt o aseparate , advanc e decisio n o f

whctfacf th e recof dshoul db e oupplomontad-Mi dwhat issue s wil l b e addresse di n th e appeal . Fo r

m e addmoim l itiasuii s staua l btduw , whe n thes e matlei s m e dceidfcd , th e Asaiatent Adminiatrate r

shoul dexeieis e he r

discretio n t o supplemen t th e iLcuid , a s JA B lia s requesttal; In addition , upo n reviewin g th e record , th e Assistan t Administrato r

shoul dfinddui t

J&B' s complain t squaiel y allege dretaliatory conduc t an dtha t MNA A wa s i n violatio n o f th e FAA Par

t 2 6 regulation prohibitin g retaliation, an ddia t th e Director' s Determinatio n discusse dth e allegations , bu t

onl y i n th e contex t

o f disparat e impac t

an dtreatmen t

claim s and , thus .erroneousl y faile dt o sqppl y th e la w recognizing retaliation a s discriminatio n t o thos e allegations . Fuitha , after

reviewing th e entir e record, includin g th e factual assertion s an dexhibit s i n MNAA' s Answe r

an dMotio n t o EHsmiss , an dth e Director' s Determination , th e Assistan t Administrato r

shoul dfin dthat

J&B' s ctHnplaint

allege dtha t

th e Hudson-Olympi c Suppl y join t ventur e di dnot

satisf y ACDB E requirement s an dtha t MNA A directl y pu t

a t issu e it s obligation s t o determin e an dmonito r thos e factor s regarding th e independen t operatio n o f

Olympi c require d fo r ACDB E status . Th e Assistan t Administrato r

als o shoul dfindan dconclud e tha t th e Director' s Determinatio n purporte dt o mak e finding s tha t th e Hudson-Olympi c join t venture satisfie dACDB E requirement s an dtha t MNA A satisfie dit s obligation s t o determin e an d monito r th e ACDB E statu s o f

Olympic , bu t

erre di n reaching thos e conclusion s becaus e i t faile d t o conside r

o r requir e fact s tha t

establishe dtha t

Olympi c operate dindependentl y an dsatisfie dal l th e requirement s fo r

ACDB E statu s i n th e Part 2 3 regulation s an dth e FAA' s Join t Ventur e Guidanc e an dtha t

MNA A ha dperforme dan dsatisfie dit s obligation s t o determin e an dmonito r thos e factors , a s require dfor i t t o credi t an dcoun t

Olympi c a s ACDB E participatio n unde r thos e sam e regulations an dFA A Join t Ventur e Guidance . Fo r all thes e reasons , J&B' s motio n t o supplemen t shoul db e giaiite dan dMNAA' s motio n t o strik e shoul db e denied . -REPL Y O N MOTIO N T O SUPPLEMENT ^ MNA A oppose s gupplementatio B o f th e iccot dt o tnelud e th e si x doeutncnt afeferrc dt o i n th e motio n 4luu , lettei s attuall y submitte dt o th e FA A i n Jauuai y an dFebiuat y 200 9 b y J&D /> w j c i n connectio n wifli th e appeal , aJun e 19,200 8 lette r fio mJ AD' athen-atteme y t o MNA A an dtw o lettw p date di n Jonuni y an dMa y o f 200 9 appende dt o th e appea l regaidbig Ui e DB E statu s u f Olympi c i n auuiitrattua l lelatiundii p witl i Hudso n at di e BW I aiipui t

i n Maiyland . nie& e wil l b e addicaae di n tumi" f

list , di e due e lettei s fiomJA B pmsel u di e FA A wei e JAD' s attemp t t o supplemen t

flie tecof dwit h materia l i t

though t bor e o n th e issne s associate dwith th e compiaiiit.—Althoug h physicall y i n th e record, th e D D eachide diht mfro mth e recor dbecans e die y wer e impropetiy

filodan d"no t

seive dpreperiy. " D D a t

9 A nn . 5 7 an d58 . MNA A aeknewledge s tha t the y wer e aubmittft di n aupper

t o f JAD' s eas e ba t

complain atha t

the y contai n '^unsubstantiate dfact aan d eonelusoi y statements:"—MNA A Oppeaitio n a t 4.—Thea e decnmcnt amee t th e tes t for aupplemcntatio n state di n th e case s upo n whic h MNA A relies, a s JA B sought t o an dbelieve d UiLj i wci e submittin g the mt o di e FA A prio r t o th e DD . Further , tha t

th e D D excise dthes e p w j c submission s fro mth e ircor dfor lac k o f servic e seem s unjns t

'mth e absenc e o f

evidwic o tha t

J& B wd! > iiifmme db y th e FA A i n di e coms e o f flie&e conmmnitation s dia t th e document s neede dt o b e serve do n MNA A t o b e oonaidorod . Second , th e MNAA' s oppositio n i s correc t i n poiittui g out

Uia t th e motio n t o supplemen t wa s wrun g i n statin g tha t flic Jun e 19 , 200 8 lette r fro mJ&B' s then-attome y t o MNA A wa s referredt o mthe , Jul y 30,200 8 lUt u o f Complanit . 3e e MNA A Oppositio n at 4 ii . 1 . O n fuitlie i review o f th e Complaint , i t

i s no t s o referencedan dtha t

statemen t

mciTor . Thus , that

groun dfo r aupplemcntatio n doe s not exist . However , th e documen t wa s sen t t o an dpresumabl y i s i n th e possessio n o f

MNA A and , althoug h not before th e Direotor , it s consideratio n o n appea l wil l not I MNAA . -ftird , th e tw o letter s containin g di e findings o f th e Marylan dAviatio n Adminiatmtie n tha t Olympi c wa ane t

operatin g indepcndenfl y o f Iludao n suc h tha t

i t di dno t qualif y a s an ACDBE , Appendi x D t o th e appeal , an ddi e Januaf y 9 , 200 9 lette r

t o M . Freilieh , FAA' a Direeto f o f DD E Compliance , Wcater n Region , fromM . Rosales , complainin g tha t Iludao n an d Olympi c wei e upeiatiii g a"slia mACDB E join t veiitui'e[ ] a t

BW I aiiport, " attache da s Appendi x A t o th e appeol , bot h satisf y th e tes t for aupi^ementntio n state di n th e case s upo n whic h MNA A 3relies, ttfl the y wer e no t know n o r

availabl e t o J&i

B prio r t o th e D P an dwer e submitte db y niotiu u wit

h th e appeal a s soo n a s Uie y were known , h i addition , alUiougli no t pievioual y know n t o JAB , thes e document s sfufuldhav e bee n know n t o MNA A a ath e entity responsibl e for monitorin g th e ACDB E statu s o f Olympic , an dwei e availabl e t o th e FA A a t th e tim e o f

an d shoul dhav e bee n eenaidefc db y th e Directo r i n makin g hi s determination . Finally , the y or o unqueotionobl y relevant

t o th e issu e o f

th e viability o f

th e Hudson-Olympi c Suppl y join t ventur e a t issu e befor e th e Directo r

as ^ i n thi s appeal , a s demonatmte dbelow . OPPOSITIO N T O MOTIO N T O STRIK E MNA A enoneousl y argue s tha t tw o issue s raise di n J&B' s appea l ar e "new " o r ar e "raise dfor

th e firs t time " i n th e appeal . Th e tw o issue s claime dt o b e ne w ar e MNAA' s retaliation agains t

J& B fo r complainin g tha t

i t wa s no t i n complianc e with ACDB E regulations, an dth e viability o f

th e Hudson-Olympi c Suppl y join t ventur e a s satisfyin g ACDB E regulations an dth e FAA' s Join t

Ventur e Guidance . Eac h i s considere di n tur n belo w and , fo r th e reasons indicated , neithe r

issu e i s ne w o r

raise dfor

th e firs t tim e o n appeal . Thus , MNAA' s motio n t o strik e shoul db e denied . MNAA' s Retaliatio n Agains t J& B Th e Complaint , o n pag e 1 , specificall y allege dtha t MNA A was i n violatio n o f 4 9 CF R 26.109 . Tha t

regulation expliciti y provides : S 26.19 9 Wha t

ar e th e ndc s gDvernin g infimnatMMi , confideiitiallty , cooperatioii , an d intfanidatio n <H

r retaliatkm ? (d ) Intimidatio n an dretaliation . I f yo u ar e arecipient , contractor , o r an y othe r participan t i n th e program , yo u mus t not intimidate , threaten , coerce , o r discriminat e agains t

an y individua l o r

fiimfo r th e purpos e o f

interferin g wid i an y right o r privileg e secure db y thi s par t o r becaus e th e individua l o r firmha s mad e acranplaint , testified , assisted , o r participate di n an y manne r i n an investigation , proceeding , o r hearin g unde r

thi s par t I f yo u violat e thi s prohibition , yo u ar e i n noncomplianc e wit h thi s part .

### (emphasi s added) .

Hi e Complain

t als o contain s specific allegation s o f discriminatio n a s retaliator y conduc t b y bodi MNA

A an dHudson . It

alleged , a t p . 3 , tha t "Hudso n ha s discriminate dagains t J& B base don rac e b

y resortin g t

o tactic s o f

intimidation to forc e J& B to collaborat e in a n artific e tha

t woul dpenni t

Hudso n to continu e th e fraudulen t performanc e of

it s concession managemen t contrac t wit h the MNAA. " (Emphasi s supplied. ) It als o allege dtha

t J& B was "threatene dwit

h remova l fro mthe premise s b y MNA

A an dHudson " whe

n i t refuse dto submi

t to Hudson' s discriminator

y treatment . Id . Th e Complain

t als o expressly allegedtha t MNA A retaliatedagains t

J&B afte

r i t complaine dtha

t MNA A was no t

complying wit

h DB E regulations in terminating it s existin g concessio n agreemen

t an dgivin g i t notic e tha t MNA A wouldissu e ane

w RF P fo r asho e shine concession . Specifically , th e Complain t allegedthat , rather

tha n meetin g to attempt

to resolve J&B' s concern s tha

t MNA A wa s no t operating in complianc e wit h di e ACDB E regulations, a s requeste di

n J&B' s April 1 6 letter , "instea dthe MNA

A responde db y temunating th e contrac t wit h J&B. " Complaint , p . 4 . Finally , the Complain t specificall

y requestedrelief

to remedy MNAA' s retaliation in terminatin g (ha t concession agreement . Th e Complain

t requeste d"a

n Agenc y directiv e prohibitin g MNA A fro mterminating th e concessio n agreemen t wit h J& B unti l afte r th e Agency conducts acomplianc e review o f al l aspect s o

f th e contrac t

performanc e o

f Hudso n regarding th e managemen t o f concession s a

t th e [MNAA]. " Complaint , p . S . Thes e allegation s wer

e discusse din th e Director' s Determination . See , e.g. , D D a t 2 , 8 . Unfortunately , i t

consideredthem , if

a t all , onl y i n th e context

of apotraitia l disparat e impac t o r disparate treatmen

t claims . See , e.g. , D

D a t 20 , 25 . The D D simply faile dto acknowledg e th e explici t claim s o f retaliatio n state din th e Complain t o r to recogniz e dia

t th e Suprem

e Cour t consistraiti y ha s hel dtha

t "[rjetaliatio n agains t

aperson becaus e tha

t person ha s complainedo

f 5

### .. . discrimination i s anothe r for mo f intentiona l .. . discrimination.... " Jackson v . Birmingha m Bd . ofEduc , 54

4 U.S . 167,173-17 4 (2005 ) (citation s omitted) . Thus , the failur

e o f di e D D to recogniz e an

dconsider J&B' s retaliation claimdi dno t result fro man y lac k o f allegation s tha

t MNA A terminated J&B' s existin g concessio n agreemen

t in respons e t

o th e lette r suggesting ACDB E regulatory violations . Instead , it resulted ftomth e DD' s failur

e to recogniz e tha

t th e plain factua

l allegation s of

retaliation constitutedaviolatio n o f Tid e V I regulations. Thi s i s mos t clearly demonstratedb y th e fac t that , althoug

h di e D D constanti y referredto th e U.S . Departmen t O f Justic e Tid e V I Lega

l Manua l fo r guidance , i t completely ignoredth e fact tha t retaliation i s explicitl

y included , along wit

h disparat e treatmen t anddisparat

e impact , in th e definition o f "Wha t Constitute s Discriminator

y Conduct? " i n tha

t Manual . Tha

t Manual , i n th e sam

e section t o whic h th e D D constantiy referred, outline s tha t retaliation i s discriminator y conduct an dthe element s of

aretaliation clai

mtha t mato h th e allegation s o

f th e Complaint . Tha

t section , i n part , provide s a s follows : Vin . Wha t Constitute s Discriminator

y Conduct ? C . Retaliatio n A complainan

t ma y bring aretaliation clai munde r Titi e V I or unde r aTid e V I regulation tha

t prohibit s retaliation . Fo

r example , mos t

agency Tide V

I regulations provid e tha t "[n] o recipient

o r odie r person shal l intinudate , threaten , coerce , o r discriminat

e agains t an y individua

l fo r the purpos e o

f interfering wit

h an y right o r privileg e securedb y [Tid e VT| , or becaus e h e ha s mad e acomplaint , testified, assisted , or participatedi n an

y maime r in a n investigation , proceedin g o r hearin g unde

r thi s subpart. " 2 8 C.F.R . § 42.108(e ) (Departinen t o f Justic e Regulation) . To establis h aprim afaci e cas e o f retaliation , th e investigatin g agenc y mus t first determine if

th e complainan

t ca n sho w (1 ) tha t h e o r sh e engagedin aprotectedactivity , (2 ) tha t the recipien

t kne w of th e complainant' s protecte dactivity , (3 ) tha t th e recipient took som e sor t o f advers e action agains t

th e coiiq>lainant, an

d(4 ) tha t dier e wa s acausa

l connectio n betwee

n th e complainant' s protecte dactivit y an dthe recipient' s advers e actions . Se e http://www.usdoi . pov/crt/grant s statutesAegaInian.php#Retaliation (las t visited7/26/09) . 6Accordingly , di e Complaint' s allegatio n o f retaliatio n i s not

a"new " issue . Instead , i t i s an issu e properi y raise da s afailur e o f th e D D t o reach a"conclusio n o f la w .. . mad e i n accordanc e with applicabl e law , precedent , an dpubli c policy, " an dth e DD s failur e to mak e findings o f

fac t regarding discriminatio n tha t "ar e supporte db y apreponderanc e o f reliable, probative , an dsubstantia l evidence. " Se e Airborn e Flyin g Sendee , Inc. , v . Cit y o f Ho t Springs , Arkansas , FA A Docke t

No . 16-07-06 , (May 2,2008 ) (Fma l Decisio n an dOrder ) pag e 1 4 (citin g Rick s V . Millineto n Municipa l Airport , FA A Docke t No . 16-98-19 , (Decembe r 30 , 1999 ) (Final Decisio n an dOrder) . MNAA* s Complianc e Wit h ACDB E Pn^ra mR^ulatton s Th e Complain t

allege dtha t

Olympic' s participatio n i n th e AMS-Olympi c Join t Ventur e di dnot satisf y ACDB E participatio n requirements . Complaint , p . 2 . I t als o allege dtha t

dia t MNA A "wa s full y awar e o f th e deficiencie s with [sic ] respect t o th e amoun t

o f ACDB E participation , bu t

i n concert

with Hudso n chos e t o ignor e them. " Id . Th e Complain t als o allege d tha t J& B was th e onl y ACDBE-eligibl e entit y "operatin g unde r th e contrac t

awarde dt o Hudson " a t th e MNA A an ddiat

Hudso n faile dt o mee t eithe r th e percentag e o f

th e join t

ventur e participatio n o r

subcontrac t

participation . Id. , a t

3 . I n thes e respects, th e Complain t allege ddiat MNA A was i n violatio n o f 4 9 CF R§ § 26.4 1 an d26.47(b) . Id. , a t 2 . Th e Director' s Determinatio n ("DD" ) pointe dou t tha t th e prope r

regulatory provision s fo r requirement s o f

th e ACDB E progra mwer e 4 9 CF R§ § 23.5 9 an d23.5 7 an dfliat it s review woul db e unde r fliose sections . DD , a t

1 8 n . 62 . Finally , th e Complain t specificall y requeste da s relief " acomplianc e review o f

all aspect s o f

th e contrac t

performanc e o f

Hudso n regarding th e managemen t o f concession s a t

th e [MNAA]. " Complaint , p . 5 . MNAA' s Answe r

an dMotio n to Dismis s certainl y recognize dth e Complain t a s havin g raise dth e large r

issu e whethe r

i t was operatin g it s ACDB E progra mi n complianc e with FAA

7regulations, rathe r than som e narrowl y define dquestion . Thi s i s mos t easil y demonstrate db y th e headin g MNA A chos e fo r that sectio n o f

it s argument : "MNA A Ha s Operate dIt s ACDB E Progra mi n Goo dFaith an dHas Fostere dDB E Participatio n i n It s Concessions. " MNAA Answer , a t

30 . I t th e argumen t

that followed , MNA A di dnot simpl y respon dt o th e specifi c issue s o f whethe r Olympi c wa s certifie di n Tennesse e a t th e tim e o f

th e RF P an dth e 51 % percen t ownershi p interest ^ Instead , i t wen t o n to asser t

affirmativel y tha t

"th e Join t

Ventur e wit

h Olynqii c Suppl y wa s a'viabl e partnership'.. . [and ] w[as ] 'responsive ' t o th e requirement s of Part 23 " a t th e tim e o f

th e RFP , an dsubmitte da s an Exhibi t it s analysi s o f

di e propose dJoin t Venture . MNA A Answer , at 32 ; Ite m1 0 Ex . 34 . Tha t Exhibi t include dsummary statement s purportin g t o b e analyse s an dconclusion s regarding level s o f capita l contribution , participatio n i n dail y operations , managemen t function s an dcommerciall y usefu l functio n i n th e propose d Hudson-Olympi c Join t

Venture . Se e Ite m1 0 Be . 34 , at p . 2 . Indeed , MNAA' s Answer an d Motio n t o Dismis s expliciti y argue dno t onl y tha t

th e Hudson-Olympi c arrangemen t wa s a "viabl e partnership, " bu t

tha t i t ha d"rejecte dth e propose djoin t ventur e agreemen t

o f anothe r proposal " for

apparen t failur e t o satisf

y th e requirement s o f

4 9 CF RPar t

23 . Id . MNA A argue d dia t i t "carefull y considere dth e DB E participatio n i n all th e NG& S proposals, " "i n keepin g wit h it s obligation s und ^ Part 23. " MNA A Answer , a t 32 . MNA A als o ther e referredto , reliedo n

' O n thos e nano w issues , MNA A purporte dt o provid e evidenc e tha t Olynqn c wa s certifie di n both Marylan dan d Tennesse e a t

th e tim e o f

th e RF P submission , ye t th e onl y materia l submitte drelatin g t o Marylan dwa s no t aDB E certificatio n bu t

an affidavi t

o f onl y on e owne r

o f 01ynq>i c seekin g DB E statu s i n Januar y 2006 , an dth e for mitsel f indicate s tha

t a n affidavi t

o f onl y on e owne r

i s no t sufficien t

Se e Ite m8 , Ex . 32 , a t

3-4 . O f course , a t

th e tim e MNA A submitte dthi s affidavi t i n respons e t o th e Complaint , th e Marylan dAviatio n Administratio n wa s refusin g t o recogniz e o r

coun t Olympic' s participatio n a s a n ACDB E i n asimilar agreemen t

with Hudso n at

th e Baltimore

Washingto n bitemationa l Airpor t Se e Appea l ^pendi x B . Hius , MNA A wa s eithe r s o uninforme da s to Olynqpic tha t i t wa s obliviou s t o th e fac t tha t i t ha dlos t it s home-stat e statu s a s countin g a s a n ACDBE , o r wa s aware bu t withhel dtha

t infixmatio n fromth e FA A an dJ& B i n respondin g t o th e Conq>laimhere . Moteovn , di e onl y documoi t MNA A submitte drelatin g t o Tennesse e i s no t aDB E certification , bu t

wha t appear s t o b e onl y a n undate d printou t Ite m8 , Ex . 32 , a t

5 . Thus , th e onl y certificatio n o f Olympi c a s aDB E i n th e recor di s that issue dby MNA A itself

. Ite m8 , Ex . 32 , a t

1-2 . 8

### andput

befor e th e Director

a s a n exhibit th e FAA' s Joint

Ventur e Guidance . MNA

A Answer, a

t 31 ; Ite m1 0 Ex . 33 . Further , in it s statemen

t o f facts , MNA

A als o assertedtha

t it s ACDBEL

O "i s responsible fo r ensuring tha

t th e Airport' s concession s progra mcomplie s wit

h FA A requirements " an

dthus , amon g othe r things , "monitor s participatio n rate s an dreports thos e rates t o th e FAA. " MNA A Answer , a t 6 ; Ite m8 (Gooding Affidavit

) (emphasi s added) . The Answe r then assert s tha

t "[t]h e concession s covere

db y amaste

r concession leas e wit

h Hudson , whic

h ar e a t issu e here , als o exceededMNAA' s goa

l o f 15.7 % ACDB E participation " becaus e "[i] n F Y 2008 , 17 % o

f gros s receipt s of

Hudson' s New s an

dGif t retai l concession s wer

e attribute dt

o DBEs. " MNA

A Answer , a t 6 (emphasi s added) . Thus , th e Complain

t an dMNAA' s Answe

r andMotion t o Dismis s squarel y put a t issu e th e viabilit

y o f the Hudson-Olympic partnershi p in th e join t

ventur e unde r the ACDB E regulations an

dthe FAA' s Join

t Ventur e Guidance . MNAA' s answe r specificall y put a t issu e th e propriet

y o f MNAA' s assessmen

t of th e viabilit

y of tha t partnershi p a t the tim e o f the RFP , it s ongoin g monitoring of

th e join t venture , it s attributio n of

17 % of th e gros s receipt s o

f th e join t ventur e a s ACDB E participatio n an dit s reporting of

tha t rate of ACDB E participatio n to di e FAA . Having respondedto th e C(»nplain t wit h thes e asserte dfact s an

dargument s regarding di e validit y o f th e Hudson-Olympic partnershi p an dho w tha t join t ventur e shouldb e countedfo

r ACDB E participation , MNA A cannot now claimdia

t thes e sam e issue s ar e "new " o r

ar e raised fo r th e first tim e on appeal . Finally , th e Director' s Determination ("DD" ) considere dth e issu e broadly , a s th e partie s ha dfiiamedth e issue . I t

recognizedtha

t "[t]h e Complainan

t allege s tha

t AMS-Olympi

c Nashville , aJoint

Ventur e (the Hudson Group)...faile dt o mee t th e 15. 7 percen

t contract goa l tha t was se t i n th e solicitation. " DD , a t 18 . An dit s formulation o

f Issu e 1 fo

r determination

### encompassedbot h whethe r the Joint Ventur e me t th e contrac t

concessio n goa

l an dwhethe r MNA A compliedwit

h Par t 23 . Id . Moreover , th e D

D purportedto mak

e specific finding s tha

t tha t "Responden

t countedth e Hudson Group' s proposedamoun t of ACDB E participation (1 7 percent ) correctly .. . an

dtha t th e Hudson Grou

p me t th e ACDB E contrac t

goa l o f 15. 7 percent " base do n evidenc e indicating tha

t "ACDB E participatio n o

f 1 7 percent

wa s attributedto the join t ventur e participation o

f Olympic Supply. " Id. , a

t 1 9 (emphasi s added) . Wha t th e D D faile dto do , an

dth e error identifiedin th e appeal , was to mak e inquirie s andfinding s necessar

y t o conclud

e tha t th e Hudson-Olympic join t ventur e satisfie dACDB E requisite s an

dgoal s and , thus , to recogniz e tha t the recor ddi dno t contain evidenc e t

o suppor t MNAA' s contention tha

t i t ha dsatisfiedit s responsibilities i n scrutinizin g th e Hudson-Olympic join t ventur e unde r the FAA' s Joint

Ventur e Guidance . Thes e responsibilities include dwha t airport s ar e requiredt

o d o i n reviewing

join t ventur e participation , se e Ite

m10 , Ex . 3 3 a

t 11-18 , monitoring ACDB E participatio n i n join t ventures , se e Ite

m10 , Ex . 3 3 a

t 23-25 , an dcounting ACDB E participation i

n join t venhires . Se

e Ite m10 , Ex . 3 3 a

t 18-23. ^ hi short , di e D

D recognize dan

dframe dthe issu e t

o b e determinedas the broa dquestio n whethe

r MNA A properl y evaluate dthe join t

ventur e participatio n of

Olympic Suppl

y but the n completel

y ignoredth e

^ Se e also , e.g. , 4 9 CJ.R . § 23.55 : Ho w d o recipient s coun t

ACDB E participatio n towar dgoal s for item s othe r

tha n ca r rentals ? (a ) Yo u coun t

onl y ACDB E participatio n tha t result s fiom acommerdall y usefii l function... . (d ) Whe n an ACDB E perfnm s a s aparticipan t i n ajoin t venture , coun t

aportio n o f

th e gros s receipt s equa l t o th e distinct , clearl y define dportio n o f Hi e wor k o f th e concessio n tha t

th e ACDB E perform s wiH i it s ow n force s towardACDB E goals . (i ) I f afir mha s no t bee n certifie da s an ACDB E i n acc<ndanc e wit h th e standard s i n thi s part , d o no t coun t th e firm's participatio n towar dACDB E goals . (j ) D o no t coun t th e wor k performe do r

gros s receipt s earne db y afirm<^ r it s eligibility ha s bee n remove d towar dACDB E goals... . (emphasi s added). 

### 1 0requirement s an dFAA' s Join t Ventur e Guidanc e i n determinin g tha t th e join t ventur e properl y me t th e ACDB E goal s an dMNA A properl y administere dit s program . Tha t i s th e erro r

properl y identifie dfromdi e D D an dth e recor dan draise do n appeal . WHEREFORE , Complainan t J& B Enterprises , Inc. , respectfiilly request s diat-it aMotio n to Supplemen t

b e grante dan dtha t

MNAA' s Motion t o Strik e b e denied .

Respectfidl y submitted , Thoma s J . Henderso n Thoma s J . Henderso n Henderso n Law Firm , PLL C 142 5 K Street , NW , Suit e 35 0 Washington , D C 2000 5 (202 ) 587-568 7 Telephon e (202 ) 587-560 1 Facsimil e Counse l fo r

Complainan t J& B Enterprises , Inc .



### 1 1CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y tha t I hav e thi s da y serve dth e foregoin g Oppositio n t o Respondent' s Motio n Fo r Immediat e Stay An dA n Extensio n O f Tim e T o Fil e Repl y o n th e followin g person s a t th e followin g addresses , b y first clas s mai l thi s 27th day o f July , 2009 : ArtiiurP.Ber g Kapla n Kirsc h & Rockwel l LL P 64 1 Lexingto n Ave. , Suit e 140 9 Ne w York , Ne w Yor k

1002 2 Thoma s R . Devin e Kapla n Kirsc h & Rockwel l LL P 100 1 Connecticu t

Ave. , N.W . Suit e 80 0 Washmgton , D.C . 2003 6 LisaReynold s Kaplan Kirsc h & Rockwel l LL P 167 5 Broadway , Suit e 230 0 Denver , C O 8020 2 Rober t Watso n MNA A On e Termma l Drive , Suit e 50 1 Nashville , T N 3721 4

Thoma s J . Henderso n Thoma s J . Henderso n Counse l fo r

Complainan t J& B Enterprises , Inc .

1 2fH^-'' ' 

# "W^ ^ ?.T ' i \,. -

4 , « ^ f

- 1 ^

- r '" I '

^ , 

# -• ' '* r i . l A

^ V

, * ^•' " / ; -?' , , -i ^ ;

>,_

' '*/ • ^

^ 1 ' i ' ' 

## •'-- . *ivic^';r*^: i r ^ - ^ .:^c:i-r'.ri.i'i.'"--V ^



# ^ -v^-i<m .

• 1^. , , 

## ^'^r^J--f,::V

r :/^, " -^''^^i^'ii-Z-^i : •, - • •; - - i . * l

r • h^-" A ? V^ ' ^ ,- . , .-i

- ,~ J .•* "

4 ^ f - -.l?^^.^;!t:^:i : ' I t



# ^'r - ^': . '4 ' ^

* r^

J - - . * '

' , < /

'f^ . ^ ^ " f

_ ' ' . ,-5 ' 3 -.•

. - ' " -"',' . *

- *!'.' '

• ' V ' V- , ' , ;, " ' ' ^!: . ,:',- ' : -^5-'",;-:^r-.- i -" i - - /' , .

n . - < ^ ' . . ' ' \k p

• 5 •'\T

> • •t ' '',"-,

- 

## ./ev:.^ v i j

:»Jkj:, „ _,-il . *4-i-' i - r -tt-.- ;09/13/200 7 11:3 1 FA X 121002/01 1

UNITE D STATES-DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPOR T ATTOM . FEDERA L AVIAtlO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WABmNCTON,D.C . Lo-Yu-Sun , Complainan t v . Por t o f Seattl e Responden t FA A Docke t No . 16-06-1 3

ORDE R O n Septembe

r 14,2006 , Complainan

t (o r "Petitioner" ) Lo-Yu-Sun , throug h counsel , filed aComplain

t wit h th e Federal Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA ) unde r 1 4 C.F.R . Part

1 6 agains t th e Port o f Seatd e (Respondent

) allegin g th e Por

t faile dt o cair y ou t

th e objective s o f the Airpor

t Concessio n Disadvantage dBusines s Enterpris e (ACDBE ) progra mimde r 4 9 C.F.R . § 23.1 , an ddiscriminatio n i n violatio n o f 4 9 C F Jl . § 26.7 . On Octobe

r 6,2006 , th e FAA issue daNotic e advisin g th e partie s tha t th e Complain t

had been dockete dan dtha t

th e Responden

t Por t o f Seattl e wa s require dt o file an answer withi n 2 0 days . Th e FA A note dHos t International Inc . (Host) , wa s not th e Fed^a l airpor t sponsor , proprietcnr, or

operator , andwa s no t

aprope r part y t o aPart

1 6 case , an

d tha t th e Complainant

ha dno t submitte dany supportin g documentatio n with hi s Complaint . On Octobe

r 20,2006 , Respondent

filed aDesignatio n o f

Person s t o Receiv e Servic e for th e Por t o f Seatd e an drequeste da60-da y extensio n o f

tim e i n whic h to file it s Answer . On Octobe r 26,2006 , th e FAA grante dRespondent' s reques t fo r an extensio n o f

tim e t o file th e Answe

r an dadvise dtha

t th e Answer

woul dno w b e dii e o n Decembe r 26,2006 , O n Decembe

r 18,2006 , Complainant

fileddocument s i n support o f hi s September

14 , 200 6 Complaint . O n Decembe

r 22,2006 , Complainant

filedaMotio n t o Amen dComplain t t o Provid e Additiona l Infiiraiatio n Pursuant

t o 1 4 C.F.R . § i6.23(g) .09/13/200 7 11:3 1 FA X 1003/01 1

SrRespondent

filedit s Oppositio n t o Complainant' s Motio n to . AmendComplain t

an daMotio n for

Extensio n o f

Tim e t o file it s Answer . O n Januar y 17,2007 , th e FAA issue da n order grantin g Complainant' s Motio n t o Am«i d Complaint t o Provid e Additiona

l Ihfonnation , an

dprovidin g Responden t

Por t o f Seattl e wit h a n additiona l 3 0 day s t

o file it s Answer . O n Februai y 15,2007 , Respondent filedit s Answer , Motio n t o Dismiss , an da Memorandu mo f

Point s an dAudioritie s andAffidavi

t i n Support

o f it s Answer

an d Motio n t o Dismiss . O n Februar

y 15,2007 , Complainant

filed aSecon dMotio n t o Amen dComplaint , a n Amende dComplaint , andfou r declarations . O n Febniat y 23,2007 , Respondent fileda n Oppositio n t o Complainant' s Secon dMotio n t o Amendit s Complaint . O n Marc h 2 , 2007 , Complainant filedaRepl y i n Suppor

t o f Secon dMotio n t o Amend Complaint an daDeclaration . O n Marc h 7 , 2007 , Complainant filedhi s Oppositio n t o Respondent' s Motio n t o Dicnuss . O n Marc h 8,2007 , Respondent filed aJoin t

Motio n t o (1 ) Strike Complainant' s Unauthorize dRepl y t o Respondent' s Oppositio n to Complainant' s Secon dMotio n t o Amendth e Complaint ; (2 ) Strike Complainant' s Untimel y Oppositio n t o th e Port' s Motio n t o Dismiss ; an d(3 ) Ba r Complainant

firomSubmittin g a

n Untimel y Repl y t o Respondent' s Answe r

t o th e Complaint . Backgroun d Th e FA A ha s before i t

th e followin g motions :

• Respondent' s Motio n t o Dismis s th e Firs t Amende dComplain t • Complainant' s SecondMotio n t o Amen dComplain t • Respondaat' s Oppositio n t o Complainant' s Secon dMotio n t o Amen ddi e Complaint • Complainant' s Repl y i n Suppor t o f Secon dMotio n t o Amen dComplaint an da Declaratio n • Complainant' s Oppositio n t o Respondent' s Motio n t o Dismis s Fiis t Amende d Complaint • Respondent' s Motio n t o Strike Complainant' s Unauthorize dRepl y t o Respondent' s Oppositio n t o Con^jlainant' s Secon dMotio n t o Amen dComplain t • Respondent' s Motio n t o Strike Complainant' s Untimel y Oppositio n t o th e Port' s Motio n t o Dismis s Firs t

Amende dComplaint , an d • Respondent' s Motio n t o Ba r Complainant

fi-omSubmittin g a

n Untimel y R«pl y t o Respondent' s Answer

t o di e Firs t

Amende dComplaint .09/13/200 7 1 1 3 2 FA X li|004/01 1

Complainant' s Secon dMotio n t o AmendComplaint ' I n thi s Motion , Complainant request s th e FAA t o replac e th e nam e o f th e Complainant

a s a n individual , "Lo-Yu-Sua, " wifl i th e Washingto n cotporation , "Sun' s inc. " Complainant no w advise s tha t

"Sun' s Inc., " rather

tha n "Lo-Yu-Sun, " i s certifie da s an Airpor t Concessionair e Disadvantage dBusines s Enterpris e (ACDBE) . T o suppor t hi s request . Complainan

t state s tha t

th e tw o airpor

t concession s discusse di n th e Complain t

- Chin aFirs t

Expres s an

dManch u Wo k - are/Vere operate db y Sun' s Inc. , th e certifie dACDBE . Complainan t advise s tha

t o n Januar y 5,2006 , h e transfciTedhi s 4 0 percen t ownershi p interes t

i n Sun' s Inc . t o aMr . Y

u (wh o i s no w th e 100 percen t shareholder) , bu t

tha t h e serve s a s vic e presiden t andgeneral manage r

o f Sim' s Inc . Complainan t

state s tha t th e Complaint

wa s brought

unde r hi s nam e a s a

n individual ratlier tha n Sun' s Inc . becaus e hi s attorne y wh o filed hi s Complain t was no t awar e o f th e chang e o f ownershi p stmcture , or

tha t Complainant

n o longer ha dan y ownershi p interest . Complainan t

indicate s that

th e ownership issu e wa s not brough t t o hi s attentio n - an d henc e hi s attorney' s attentio n - unti l on o r about Februar y 7,2007 , whe n arevie w o f Sxm' s Inc' s ownershi p strucmr e b y th e State o f

Washington' s Offic e o f

Minority an d Women' s Busines s Enterprise s (OMWBE) brough t ou t th e fact tha t th e company' s ownershi p ha dchanged . Complainan t advise s tha

t th e Complain t

wa s brou^ t

under bi s cam e a s an individual becaus e hi s positio n an ddutie s a s vic e presiden t

an dgeneral manage r ha dno t change dafte

r Januar y 5,2006 , andh e di dnot

realiz e that

amor e specifi c referenc e t o hi ma s th e minorit y owner o r part owner wa s needed . Complainant' s cotmse i i n aDeclaratio n state s that h e ha dno t

previousl y bee n awai e dia t Complainan t

onl y owne daminorit

y 4 0 percen t

imeres t i n Sun' s Inc. , an dtha

t i t wa s no t unti l Januar

y 31,200 7 diat

h e teamedfi-omMr . Su n tha t Su n wa s not

th e sol e owner

o f Sun' s Inc . an dtha

t Su n ha dtransferre dhi s 4 0 percen t iiiteres t t o Mr . Yu . Complainant

urge s th e FAA t o penni t

hi mt o file asecon damende dcomplain t i n th e name o f Sun' s Inc. , arguin g that : (1 ) th e Directo r ha s discretio n t o accep t

th e amende d complain t under 1 4 C.F.R . 16.11(a) ; there woul db e n o prejudic e t o Respondent ; (2 ) cas e law , legislativ e history , andsimila r rule s o f practic e suppor

t acceptanc e o f

a n amende d * Th e FA A alread y provide dConq>lauian

t wit h on e opportunit

y to amen d hi s Complaint . O

n Octobe r 6,2006 , di e FA A place d Complainan

t o n notic e tha

t hi s Conq>l8in

t lacke dan y supportin g documentation , tha

t Fait 1 6 requiredtha

t pleading s b e accornpanie

dby supportin

g documentatio

n upo n whic h th e partie s rely , an

d tha t di e Complainan

t ha s the burde

n o f proof t o establish hi s Complaint . Ove r dire e month s later , o

n Decembe

r 18,2006 , Complainan

t filed document s i n suppor t of it s Septembe

r 14,200 6 Complaint . O

n Decembe

r 22 , 2006 , Complainan

t filed aMotio

n t o Amen d hi s Complaint . However, pursuan t t o di e FAA' e Octobe

r 26,200 6 letter , th e Respondent' s Answe r wa s due o n Decembe

r 26 , 2006 . In it s Januar

y 17 , 2007 , Order, the FA

A advise dComplainan

t tha t the supportin

g documentatio

n shoul dhav e bee n filedwid i hi s Septembe

r 14, 2006 Complain

t an dtha t hia-failUF e t o do s o ha s delaye

dthe proceeding . Despit

e Complainant' s error , the FA A grante dComplainant' s first

reques t to amen d the complain

t a s necessar

y o r appropriat e fo r afai r an d complet e hearing o f

the matter .09/13/200 7 1 1 :3 2 FA X glOOS/OI I

-Fn^t^pi^t-mt-m-thfrintflfflir t o f faimpwc ; C^

) smrf f FA A nilgs , includin g Par t 16 . findthei r genesi s i n th e Federal Rule s o f Civi l Procedure (FRCP) , di e latte r shoul db e highl y Jfl'tir^'-i"'' ' tKr-Pafi P hn^rr t • < liKffr-a T pntiV y frtwaTf

^ ihe , armmdmem t

f> f pjyadings : UndC

T Rul e 1 5 o f

tiie FRCP , partie s may amendthei r pleading s onc e a s amatte r of'cours e a t

an y time before aresponsiv e pleadin g i s served ; (4 ) Respondent ha s suffere dn o prejudice . Complainan t

ha s no t acte di n badfait

h andit s Complain

t i s no t fiitile; (5 ) Unite dState s Departmen t

o f Transportatio n rule s (1 4 C.FJI . 302^ ) provid e tha t a n applicatio n mayb e amende dprio r

t o th e filing o f

answer s thereto ; an dsinc e Complainan t filedhi s amende d complain t prio r t o Respondent

filing it s Answer , Respondent ha s not suliere dan y prejudice . I n reply , Responden t

argues ; (1 ) th e Secon dMotio n t o Amen dComplain t finis t o mee t appropriate legal standard s moluding thos e discusse di n Foma n v . Davis . 37 1 U.S . 17 8 (1962) ; (2 ) th e Motio n was filedafte r Responden t

filedit s Answer ; (3 ) Complainan t i s askin g t o amen dhi s Complaint more than five month s afte r filing hi s initia l Complaint , an dtha t Complainan t

ha s ha dampl e tim e t o mak e thi s lates t

change ; (4 ) th e fac t

that Complainant' s counse l wa s unaware o f th e defect s i n th e Complain t i s immaterial ; th e Complainan t

i s ultimatel y responsibl e fo r th e prosecutio n o f

th e proceeding ; i n both instances , Complainan t

ha s filedbot

h o f hi s motion s t o amendth e Complain t a t about th e sam e tim e Respondent' s Answe r wa s due ; (5 ) permittin g Complainan t t o amen dhi s Complain t

ye t agai n woul db e extremel y pr<5judicia l to Responden t

becaus e (a ) i t

woul d b e a n undu e burde n t o require it , fo r aseconi dtime , t o revis e it s Answe r an dMotio n to Dismis s t o respon dt o ne w fact s an dallegation s (particularl y sinc e Responden t basedit s Motio n t o Dismis s i n part

o n th e fact

that Mr . Lo-Yu-Su n i s no t

acertifie dACDBE) , an d (b ) Respondent' s lega

l positio n ha s bee n expose dt o Complainant sinc e Complainan t

ha s alread y see n Respondent' s respons e t o th e initia l an damende dcomplaints ; (6 ) Complainant

intentionall y lie din afi'audulent manne r i n hi s Complain t

an dha s acte di n ba dfaith ; (7 ) Complainant' s conduc t an drepresentation s i n thi s proceedin g ar e inconsisten t

wit h th e Par t 2 3 an dPar

t 2 6 requirement s tha

t th e sociall y an deconomicall y disadvantage dindividual maintai n ownership an dcontro l ove r th e business ; Mr , Su n brough t th e Complaint

i n hi s individual capacit

y a s di e owner

an doperato r

o f Chin aFirs t Expres s andManch

u Wok ; Respondent

ha s already submitte dt o FA A extensiv e correspondenc e concernin g matter s raise di n th e Complain t al l o f whic h hav e com e fi'om o r bee n directe dt o Mr . Sun ; Responden t ha s n o relationshi p with th e actua l owne r o f Sun' s Inc. , Mr . Yu . Th e latte r ha s no t bee n involve di n an y recen t discussion s or communication s wit

h Responden t

regardin g Chin aFirs t

Expres s o r

Manch u Wok , an d ha s hadn o rol e i n thi s proceeding . DKiisio n Th e FA A hereb y grant s Complainant' s Secon dMotio n t o Amen dComplain t A s Complainant

asserts , th e prope r

identificatio n o f

th e partie s t o thi s proceedin g wil l elimmate an

y wast e o f time an dresource s i n havin g t o correc t th e confusio n late r

on , an d wil l facilitat

e th e efficienc y o f

th e proceeding ,09/13/200 7 11:3 2 FA X iioos/oi i

t|i.u/i»»T.,'<tl-|. » T7

A A ppfniif n th m Mfitin n tr t Ainf^r i wiT h rp.luctanr.e , i n par t becaus e Par t 1 fi i s a n accelCTate

dadministrativ e process , intende dt o expedit e substantiall y th e handin g Moreover , i n aJanuar

y 17,200 7 letter , th e FA A admonishe dComplainan t tha t hi s failur e t o suppor t hi s September

14,200 6 Complaint

with supportin g documentation , a s Part 1 6 expressl y requires , ha dalready delaye dthi s proceedbg . An da s Responden t point s out , eac h tim e tha t

Complainant

ha s requeste dt o amen dhi s Complaint , i t ha s bee n s^ve d on or about th e da y that

Respondent' s Answe

r wa s due . Th e Complainant , wh o ha s no w filedtw o motion s t o amen dcomplaint , i s dierefore nlace do n notic e tha t eve n unde r FRC P 15 ; "repeate dfailure t o cur e deficiencie s b y amendment s previousl y allowed " serve s a s agroun dt o deny leav e t o amend . Foman . 37 1 U.S . a t 182 . Accordingly , n o fiirther

motion s to amendth e complaint wil l b e entertaine di n thi s proceeding . Analysi s W e loo k t o Federal la

w whe n decidin g th e issu e o f complaint amendmen t

unde r Par t 1 6 becaus e tha t

rul e contain s n o specifi c amendment provision . Federal La w set s avery libera l standar dfo

r partie s t o amen dcomplaints , h i fact , outrigh t refusal t o gran t

th e leav e withou t

an y justifyin g reaso n ma y constitute s a n abus e o f discretio n an di s inconsisten t

wit h di e ^iri t

o f th e Federal Rules . Fon?an . 37 1 U.S . a t 182 . Rul e 1 5 o f

di e FRC P proAfide

s tiiat aparty ma y amen dit s complaint onc e '*a s amatte r o f course " befor

e aresponsiv e pleadin g i s served . Subsequently , th e '^art y ma y amen dth e party' s pleadin g onl y b y leav e o f

court o r b y writte n consen t

o f th e advers e party an dleav e shal l b e fieely give n whe n justic e s o requires. " Fed . R . Civ , P . 15(a) . Th e Supreme Cour

t ha s interprete d"freel y give n whe n justic e s o requires " t o mean tha t "[i] n th e absenc e o f

an y apparen

t o r declare dreaso n - suc h a s undu e delay , ba dfait h o r dilator y motiv e o n th e part

o f th e movant , repeate dfidlure t o cur e deficiencie s b y amendment s previousl y allowed , undu e prejudic e to th e opposin g part y b y virtu e o f allowanc e o f

th e amendment , futilit

y o f th e amendment

^ etc . - th e leav e sough t

should , a s th e rule s require , b e fireely given. " Foman . 37 1 U.S . a t 182 . Se e als o PC D Programs . Ltd . v . Leiehton . 83 3 F.2 d183 , 185(9*Cir . 1987 ) (Rul e 15'spolic y o f favorin g amendment s t o pleading s shoul db e applie dwit h "extrem e liberality,") . " A liberal , pro amendment

etho s dominate s th e inten t an djudicia l constructio n o f Rul e 15(a). " 3 Moore's Federal Practic e f 15.14[1 ] (3 ded . 2003) . Tw o additional factor s ar e sometime s use dt o determin e whethor justic e require s grantingleav e t o amend : judicial econom y an dwhethe r

aparty previousl y amende dapleading . 3 Moore' s Federal Practice ! 15.15[1 ] (3 ded . 2003) , Th e inten t o f th e rul e i s '^ o assis t

th e dispositio n o f

Utigatio n o n th e merit s o f th e cas e rathe r than hav e pleading s becom e end s i n themselves. " Summi t Offic e Fade , hic , y . U.S , Steel Corp. . 63 9 F.2 d1278,128 4 (5t b Cir . 1981) . h i exercisin g it s discretion , " acour t mus t b e guide db y th e undfflyin g puipos e o f Rul e 1 5 - t o facilitat e decisio n o n th e merit s rather than o n th e pleading s or

technicalities. " PC D Programs . 83 3 F.2 dat 186 . Court

e09/13/200 7 11.-3 2 F.'t X @ i 007/01 1 6

" •illDllll

l flMfl y t;mn t Hl'^M^-fTr^li I jnriffdi^''^^'^ l -"'•p;°^i'^» ^ ^ V"P^'{ ; Fe^J?ra l Pfj^ctic e 115.14[3 ] (3 ded . 2003) . Also , amotio n t o mak e a n amendment

i s t o b e liberall y grMite

d claim . McCarti n v . Norton . 67 4 F.2 d1317,132 1 (9di Cir.1982) . W e no w tur n t o di e factor s use dt o determin e th e propriety o f amotio n fb

r leav e t o amend . Undu e prejudice , considere db y flie court s t o b e ke y factor , ma y resul t fi»m dela y b y th e movan t

i n requestin g leav e t o amend , bu t th e passag e o f

tiirie alon e i s usuall y no t

enoug h t o den y leav e t o amend . Ss s PC D Programs . 83 3 F.2 da t 186) ( dela

y b y itsel f i s insufSclen t

t o justif y denial o f

leavi e t o amend) . I n mos t

cases , comt s wil l deny leav e t o amendonly i f th e non-movin g party i s i n fac t prejudice db y th e delay . Prejudic e i s especiall y likel y t o exis t i f th e amendmen

t involve s ne w theorie s o f

recover y o r woul drequir e additiona

l discovery . I f

delay i s undul y excessive , however , court s may den y leav e t o amen do n tha

t factor alonei Moore' s Federa

l Practice . T

f 15.15[2 ] (Bender/Lexi s on-lin e editio n accesse dMay 24,2007) . Complainant

argue s tha

t Respondent

would " silffe

r n o prejudice . Re^onden t disagrees , arguin g it ha s bee n prejudice dbecaus e i t woul db e burdensome t o requir e i t t o revis e it s pleading s asecon dtim e to respon dt o ne w fact s andallegation s (particularl y sinc e Respondent

base dit s Motio n t o Dismis s i n part o n th e fac t

tha t Mr . Lo-Yu-Su n i s no t

a certifie dACDBE) ; thei r

lega l positio n ha s bee n expose dt o ComplainantYi.e ^ Complainant

ha s attempte dt o amen dit s pleadin g afte r aresponsiv e pleadin g ha s bee n served) ; andComplainant

waite dto o lon g t o file. Under th e cas e law , undu e prejudic e i s likel y t o exis t

i f th e amendment

involve s ne w theorie s o f

recover y o r woul drequir e additiona l discovery , o r

i f th e dela y i s undul y excessive . It i s unlikel y tha

t Respondent

wil l b e require dt o conduc t additional discovery * Also , a s a resul t o f hi s jnistake , Complainant

wil l not b e seekii ^ ne w theorie s o f recovery . Complainant' s allegation s hav e not substantiall y change dan dther e shoul db e n o nee dfo r " agrea t dea l o f additional discovery. " Atchinso n v . Distric t o f Coluin)[;)ia

- 7 3 F.3 d418 , 42 6 (D.C , Cir . 1996) . Moreover , Responden t shoul dno t

hav e bee n surprise db y th e propose damendmen t

sinc e th e sublease s ar e betwee n Respondent' s lessee , Host , and Chin aFirs t

Expres s andManchu Wo k an dSun' s Inc. , not

Lo-Yu-Sun . Respondent' s Febmar y 15 , 200 7 Memorandu mo n Point s an dAuthorities , p . 11 , I n addition , du e t o th e fac t

tha t unde r th e rule s o f

Par t 16 , Complainan t

woul dhav e th e right t o file ane w complaint

imder th e nam e o f

"Sun' s Inc " i f

FA A wer e t o den y Complainant' s Secon dMotio n t o Amen dan ddismis s th e complain t i n it s entii^et

y without prepudice , an y prejudic e to Responden t i s minimized . Th e Complainant' s propose damendmen t wil l no t chang e th e factual base s o f hi s claims . The Complaint

was writte n a s i f

Lo-Yu-Su n was a

n ACDB E - th e amendmen t merel y substitute s th e correc t

party , Sun' s Inc . Th e propose damendment wil l no t undul y increas e discovery , dela

y th e proceeding , o r

suipris e Reqiondent , Youel l v . FN U Russell . 200 7 W

L 70904 1 (D . N.M . 2007) ,09/13/200 7 1 1 3 2 FA X (Hooa/o n

-^^t't'f'-fx^yi-^'Trrrmihft^et^ nn t nnTTirfitiiteJindii f

Hflny , pspficiall y sinc e th e matte r i s qtil l i n th e pleading s stage . Se e Do e v . McMillan . 56 6 F.2 d713,72 0 p,C.Cir.l977 ) (upholdin g "f l deiJi'i U M f l"?'^' ' *•' • "••'••?'' ^ *' • "i^' * f •p*' " a^iftQg<i>;>T

i an H arM» w HftfanHfln

t mor e thai) L thre e year s afte r litigatio n began) , cert , denied . 43 5 U-S . 96 9 (1978) ; Jone s v , Childers . 1 8 F,3 d 899,90 9 (11" * Cir . 1994)(cour t foun dundu e delay wha i plaintif f motione dt o ad d affirmativ e defense s fou

r year s afte r complaint

filed); an dDRR

- L.L.C . v . Sears . 17 1 F.R-D . 162,167-16 8 (D . Del . I997)(party' s dela y mmovin g t o amen dcomplain t tw o an d one-hal f year s afte r entr y o f summar y judgmen t

constitute dunfai r

prejudic e t o opposin g party) . Ba dfait h i s define da s "dishonest

y o f beUe f o r puipose. " Black' s La w Dictionar y (8t h cd . 2004) . A "dilatory " motiv e i s on e tha t tend s t o caus e delay . J^ . Th e Respondent s describ e Mr . Sun' s practice s a s "negligent an ddilatory " an dalleg e tha t h e ha s "intentionall y lie di n afi-audulent manner. " Por

t o f Seattle' s Oppositio n t o Complainant' s Secon dMotio n t o AmendComplaint

(Feb . 23,2007) , p . 4 . However , th e recor dreveal s onl y neghgenc e on Mr . Sun' s part . A s Mr . Sun argues , i t ha s bee n readil y apparen t dia t hi s clai mconcern s th e entit y certifie da s th e ACDBE . Moreover , Respondent

Por t acknowledge s that

th e sublease s betwee n Complainan t an dHos t International , Inc , wer e writte n a s betwee n "Sun' s Inc. " an dHost , an dno t "Lo-Yu-Sun " an dHost . S o th e Port

wa s a t leas t o n notic e tiiat

di e ACDB E wa s "Sun' s hic " (o r "Sun' s Inc . d/b/ aChin aFirs t

Restaurants" ) andno t

"Lo>Yu-Sun. " Respondent' s Februar y 15 , 200 7 Memorandu mo n Point s andAuthorities , p . 11 . Concernin g repeatedfailur e to cure deficiencie s b y amendment s previousl y allowed , thi s i s afacto r occasionall y use db y th e court s whe n considerin g denia l o f amotio n for

leav e to amend . Th e cas e law indicate s tha t acourt' s discretio n ove r

amendment s i s especially

broa d"wher e th e court

ha s already give

n aplaintif

f on e o r nior e opportututie s t o amend hi s complaint. " DCDLfrograms , 83 3 F.2 da t 186 , n , 3 . citip g Mi r

v . Fosburg . 64 6 F.2 d 342,34 7 (9 * Cir . 1980) . Here , whil e Complainant ha s move dfor

asecon dop3x>rtunit

y t o amendhi s complaint , th e FAA doe s no t vie w thi s fact

a s enoug h t o outweig h th e benefi t t o thi s proceedin g o f

havin g identificatio n o f

th e partie s correcte dearl y o n durin g th e pleading s stage . Also , i f

th e FAA wer e t o den y Complainant' s Secon dMotio n t o Amend , unde r

th e rule s o f

Par t 1 6 an ddismiss'th e complaint

i n it s entirety withou t prejudice . Complainan t

woul dhav e th e right

t o file ane w complain t

unde r th e nam e o f "Sun' s tic, " Requirin g Complainant to refil e woul dfiirther

delay thi s proceedin g an

d wast e FAA' s limite dresources . Concernin g iiitility , court s wil l generall y no t grant leav e t o amen dwher e th e amendmen t merel y restate s th e sam e fact s a s th e original complain t i n differen

t terms , rea.<i8ert

s a claimo n whic h th e cour

t previousl y ruled , fail s t o stat e alega l theory , o r

coul dno t withstan damotio n t o dismiss . Moore' s Federa l Practice , f 15.15{3 ] (Bender/Lexi s on lin e editio n accesse dMay.24 , 2007) . Th e prope r party to tibis proceedin g i s "Sun' s Inc " ladie r dia n "Lo-Yu-Sua " I t

woul dno t

b e fiitile t o permi t

Complainan t

t o amen dit s Complaint t o correc t it s erro r in namin g th e prope r

party bringin g th e complaint . Complainan

t i s no t simpl y restatin g th e fact s i n differen t terms . No r

i s h e reassertin g a previousl y rule dclai mo r

failin g t o state alega l theory . §§§ . Banl^v . Pitt . 92 8 F,2 d1108 ,09/13/200 7 11:3 3 FAX ©009/01 1

111 2 f 11* ^ Cir . 199lVplaintiff^<hQiiJ dhnv p nfynrmnit y t n amen dwht^ n mor e carefiiH y drafte dcomplain t

migh t stat e claim)(overTUle di n par t o n othe r

grounds) . Concernin g judicia l economy , court s generall y consider ho w di e amendmen t

woii3 3 affec t th e us e o f

judicial resource s anddi e impac t o n di e judicia l syatem , Mooie' s Federa l Practice . I

f 15.15[1 3 (Bender/Lexi s on-lin e editio n accesse dMa y 24,2007)) , I f anything , grantin g Complainant' s SecondMotio n t o Amen dComplain t wil l actuall y expedit e thes e proceedings . A s state dbefore , i f th e FA A were t o den y Complainant' s Motio n an ddisnus s th e complain t in it s entirety , i t

woul dnecessaril y b e withou t prejudic e t o refiling . Assumin g Complainan t woul drefile , denyin g Complainant' s Motio n woul donl y delay th e dispositio n on th e merits , h i grantin g Complainant' s Motion , th e FA A finds n o prejudic e to th e administratio n o f Par t 16 . Moreover , th e publi c ha s a

n interes t i n promp t

resolutio n o f

disputes . ACCORDINGLY , i t

i s ordere dthat : Complainant' s Secon dMotio n t o AmendComplaint i s granted . N o fiirther

motion s t o amen dth e complain t

wil l b e entertaine di n thi s proceeding.' ' Respondent' s Motio n t o Strike Complainant' s Unauthorize dRepl y t o Respondent' s Oppositio n t o Complainant' s Secon dMotio n t o Amen dComplain t an dRespondent' s Motio n t o Strik e Complainant' s Untimely Oppositio n t o di e Port' s Motio n t o Dismis s Firs t Amende dComplain t

are granted. ' Responderit' s Motio n t o Dismis s di e Firs t Amende dComplain t

i s denie da s moo t

du e to th e admissio n o f

th e secon damende dcomplaint i n thi s proceeding . Respondent' s Motio n to Ba r Complainan

t fi-omSubmittin g a

n Untimel y Repl y t o Respondent' s Answe r

t o th e Firs t

Amende dComplain t

i s denie da s moo t

du e t o th e admissio n o f

the.secon damende dcomplaint i n thi s proceeding .

^ l apangrap b 6. 2 o f

th e secon damencle

dcon^lain t

imde r "Praye r Fo r Kelief' Coo^laiDan t

request s damage s fo

r it area«onabl e expense s an dlosses . Th e FA A i s no i authorize dt o awar dntonetary damage s lutide r Par t 16 . Relie f

unde r Par t { 6 i s limite dto oide n o f

oomplianc e punuao t

t o sectio n 16.109(a) . ^ ComplainaDt' s "reply " o f Marc h 2,2007 , i n suppoT

t o f it s secon dTiiotio

n t o axoea ddie-con^lain t

wa s an unauthorize dpleading . Sectio n 16.1 9 penrdt s amodo n an da n answe r t o di e motion . I t

doe s notpemo t

a reply . Complainant' s Marc h 7,2007 , oppositio n t o Respondent' s February IS , 2007 , Motio n t o Dismis s Firs t Aiijende dComplain t

wa s ttntiniely. Unde

r secdO d16. 1 S>(c

) a n sjMwe

r t o amotio n mus t

b e tile dwithi n 1 0 days , Even addin g a n additionB l 3 day s unde r th e mai l nil c unde r

16.n(c) , Coiz^lainant' s respons e t o th e motion t o diunis s •wt

auatiinely . Further , Complainant di dno t provid e an y explanatio n fo r th e untimely filing an dth e recor dprovide s nime .08/13/200 7 11:3 3 FA X ^,,^^^^ , 

### 9

r.npont3cTi t t r"y^i " - " •'"'•"'• ^ t ^ t^* - '^•^^n A omMidp d nnmplaint . wit h a motio n t o : _ dismis s i f appropriate , withi n 3 0 day s o f di e servic e dat e o f

thi s order . Thereafter Complainant

ma y file aRepl y an

dRespondent

aRebutta l pursuan t

to di e time period s i n 1 4 C.F.R , § 16.23(e) , (£) . N o otiie r pleading s wil l b e accepte dfromeithe r part y i n thi s proceedin g unles s requeste db y th e FAA . 

# O^A ^ SE P 1 2 2X3 7 Davi dL . Bennet t Director , Offic e o f

Airport Safet y andStandards ^

" Th e FAA' s Oflic e fo

r Civi l Right s ha s authorit

y t o adjudicate an dissu e decision s i n case s involvin g civ U right s allegation s filedunde r 1 4 CF RPart 16 , suc h a s thi s case . .O n Fe^niai y 22,2002 , th e Directo r o f tibe Offic e o f Airpor t Safet y an dStandard s delegate dt o th e Deput y Assistan t

Administrato r

for Civi l Right s th e authorit y t o prepar e an dissu e director' s deteimmatlan s pursuan t t o 1 4 CF RPar t

1 6 O n Jaavai y 17,2007 . th e Deput y .Assistant

Administrato r

fo r Civi l Right s issue dth e first ord ai athi s cas e grantii ^ th e first motio n to amen dcomplaint . Sinc e that tim e th e positio n o f

th e Deputy Assistan t

Admiaistrato r

for O'vi l Right s ha s become vacan t

withou t a n actin g official . In th e interi mth e Director , Offic e o f S«£!t y and Standard s shal l ac t

a s ib e decisio n maker .09/13/200 7 11:3 3 FA X HOII/OI I 1 0 CERTIFTQT r

n v fippvrry. I HEREB Y CERTIF Y dia t o n Septembe

r (o ^ , 2007. 1 cause dto b e place di n th e Unite dState s mai l (firs t

class , postag e paid ) o r

personall y delivere datru e cop y o f th e foregoin g doctimen t

addres s to : Mr . Rodne y L . Umberjger , Jr . Ms . Claire J . Hur Williams , Kasme r

& Gibbs , PLL C 60 1 Unio n Street , Suit e 410 0 Seattle , W A 98101-238 0 Fa x (206 ) 628-661 1 Mr . Crai g R . Watso n Genera l Counse l Por t o f Seattl e P.O . Bo x 120 9 Seattle , W A 98111-120 9 Mr . Arthur

P . Ber g Mr . Danie l S . Reime r Kaplan , Kirsc h & Rockwel l LLP 73 0 Fift h Avenue , Suit e 90 0 Ne w York , N Y 1001 9 Fa x (646 ) 514-544 0 FAA Par t 1 6 Airpor

t Proceeding s Docket

(AGC-610 ) Of&c e o f Civi l Rights , ACR- 4

TCeJeffersOTT'^^ ^ Shaiice , Airport s an dEnvironmenta l La w Divisio n Offic e o f di e Chie f Counse l i



### I M