1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

CHANDLER AIR SERVICE ,

Complainant,

vs. CITY OF CHANDLER, ARIZONA ,

Respondent. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FAA Docket No. 16-13-05

Designation of persons to receive service for Chandler Air Service: Timothy I. McCulloch Gordon & Rees LLP 111 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1600 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Telephone: (602) 794-2460 Facsimile: (602) 265-4716 Email: tmcculloch@gordonrees.com2

CLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY AND

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS
Claimant Chandler Air Service moves, pursuant to 14 C.F.R., Part 16, § 16.11, for an extension to file the Reply and Response to the Motion to Dismiss in the above-captioned matter until November 26, 2013; a 28-day extension. Section 16.11 provides in relevant part: (a) Under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 47121, the Director may conduct investigations, issue orders, and take such other actions as are necessary to fulfill the purposes of this part, including the extension of any time period prescribed where necessary or appropriate for a fair and complete hearing of matters before the agency. As (a) above states, “the Director is expected to allow sufficient time for a fair and complete investigation and determination.” Final Agency Decision and Order, Vincent DeSciose, Jr., and Omaha Airplane Supply, Inc., d/b/a Aero Realty Company v. City of Long Beach , FAA Doc. No.16-99-12, at 26 (Dec. 13, 2001). Here an extension is warranted so that there is sufficient time for a fair and complete record and hearing of this matter. Chandler Air Service filed its Complaint by letter dated July 2, 2013. The parties agreed to a stipulated schedule for the parties to file the Answer, Reply and Rebuttal, which motion was granted. (See Respondent City of Chandler, Arizona’s Motion to Approve Stipulated Schedule for the Parties to File the Answer, Reply, and Rebuttal; August 27, 2013 letter from the FAA to counsel for the parties.) The City filed its Answer on September 30, 2013, and also a Motion to Dismiss. ( See Answer of City of Chandler, Arizona; Motion to Dismiss Complaint; Respondent City of Chandler, Arizona’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of its Motion to Dismiss and Answer.) The City’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of its Motion to Dismiss and Answer is 36 pages and includes as exhibits over 700 pages of documents. Counsel for Chandler Air Service contacted the City’s counsel on October 11, 2013,3

and requested an extension of time to file Chandler Air Service’s Reply and Response to Motion to Dismiss. Although the City would not agree to join in a stipulated motion, the City’s counsel informed undersigned counsel that the City would not object to Chandler Air Service moving for
an extension. This motion is brought in good faith, and not for purposes of delay. Chandler Air Service believes that the length of the City’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of its Motion to Dismiss and Answer, and the large number of documents provided in support, amply justify the additional time. Chandler Air Service is a small aviation business with limited staffing resources; indeed far less than the City which had an additional 32 days in addition to the standard 20 days, to respond to the Complaint, notwithstanding that the City was provided a copy of the Complaint well in advance of its filing. Mr. John Walkup, the President of Chandler Air Service, is the only individual available to gather the substantial documents and assist counsel in preparing the response to the City’s answer and motion to dismiss while at the same time running his business. In addition, to appropriately respond to the numerous false contentions made by the City the Complainant must obtain documents from third parties and from the City via public records requests. Indeed, Complainant is requesting less of an extension than the City sought for its initial answer and to which Complainant stipulated as a professional courtesy. Complainant therefore needs the time to ensure that it can obtain, review and analyze the appropriate documents in a reasonable timeframe and ensure that full fair and complete record is placed before the Agency. The extension of time will not prejudice the FAA’s investigation or have a material adverse impact on the parties, but will promote the efficient and just resolution of this case.4

For the foregoing reasons, Chandler Air Service respectfully requests that the FAA grant its motion and allow the short extension requested above. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 15th day of October, 2013.

GORDON & REES LLP

By: /s/ Timothy I. McCulloch Timothy I. McCulloch Attorneys for Claimant5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 15, 2013, I electronically filed and served the foregoing Claimant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Rebuttal and Response to Motion to Dismiss with/on:
FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-610 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 1 copy served via Email 9-AWA-AGC-Part-16@faa.gov W. Eric Pilsk Daniel S. Reimer Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP 1001 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 1 copy via Email epilsk@kaplankirsch.com dreamer@kaplankirsch.com Kay Bigelow, Acting City Attorney Chandler City Attorney’s Office P.O. Box 4008 Chandler, AZ 85244-4008 1 copy via Email Bigelow@chandleraz.gov

/s/Kimberley M. Davison Gordon & Rees LLP

1052237/17119699v.1