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.com
2

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 Claimant
5

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