'J 

SERVED: October 21, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In The Matter Of: ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

WILLIAM A. CURTRIGHT 

Respondent 

Case No. 2014NM090046 

ORDER SETTING DEADLINES FOR 

THE FAA TO SUPPLEMENT ITS MOTION, 

FOR THE RESPONDENT TO RESPOND AND SHOW CAUSE, 

AND GRANTING/RESERVING OTHER RELIEF 

On July 8, 2015, a Procedural Order was filed, which set certain discovery and litigation 

deadlines. Included in this July 8, 2015 Order was a request for e-mail filings, as well as a 

directive to "be prepared to present this case at a hearing on or after December 4, 2015." (Order, 

2 ~ 3.) The record shows that no hearing has yet been scheduled. 

On August 5, 2015, the FAA filed Complainant's Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted 

and to Dismiss Appeal ("Motion"). 

That same day, on August 5, 2015, the prose Respondent, William A. Curtright, filed a 

Response to the Complaint ("Answer"). Included in this Answer was a request to deem the case 

resolved, and to dismiss the proposed civil penalty of $11,000. ("Motion to Dismiss"). This 

Answer and Motion to Dismiss was not filed with the FAA Hearing Docket. 

On August 11, 2015, the Respondent filed a Reply to Complainant's Motion to Deem 

Allegations Admitted and to Dismiss Appeal ("Response"). The Certificate of Service attached 

to this Response showed that it had not been filed with the FAA Hearing Docket. 

On October 8, 2015, an Order Reassigning Proceeding was filed, which reassigned the 

case to the undersigned. 
On October 15, 2015, the FAA filed Complainant's Renewed Motion to Deem 

Allegations Admitted and to Dismiss Appeal ("Renewed Motion"). 

Brief Discussion 

In FAA civil penalty proceedings, the FAA's Rules ofPractice require that a respondent 

file an answer to a complaint within 30 days of service ofthe complaint. 14 C.P.R. § 13.209(a). 

When a complaint is served by mail, the respondent is given an additional five (5) days to 

respond (i.e., a total of 3 5 days). 14 C.F .R. § 13.211 (e). If a respondent fails to respond or 

answer a complaint, a default finding or judgment may be entered against the respondent. 

If, however, a respondent files a late answer (i.e., an answer filed outside or beyond the 

applicable 30 day or 35 day period) such answer may be considered only if the respondent makes 

a showing of"good cause" for the delay. 14 C.P.R.§ 13.209(±). "A showing of good cause is 

mandatory. Without it failure to file an answer by the deadline may not. be excused."' Global 

Peace Initiative, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-8 at 6 (Aug. 21, 2008) (quoting Atlantic World 

Airways, FAA Order No. 1995-28 at 4 (Dec. 19, 1995)). 

In its October 15, 2015 Renewed Motion, the FAA seeks a default finding and judgment. 

The FAA asserts in the Renewed Motion that its' Complaint, dated May 19,2015, was "filed" on 

May 19,2015. (Ren. Motion, 1). According to the Complaint's Certificate of Service, the FAA 

served the Respondent via a post office box address either by facsimile (i.e., fax) or by certified 

mail (return receipt requested). (Compl. Cert. Service, 1.) 

Pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.224(b), the FAA has the burden of proof in demonstrating 

proper service and receipt of its Complaint. See also, Steven Baicker-McKee, et al., Federal 

Civil Rules Handbook, 233 (West 20 12) (The burden of proof of service is on the party 

attempting service.) Although the FAA did not attach any proof of fax number, fax 

confirmation, 1 or certified mail return-receipt with its Renewed Motion, it asserts that the 

Complaint was properly served on May 19, 2015, and that June 19, 2015 was the last day that the 

Respondent could have filed a timely answer. (Ren. Motion, 2.) 

1 Although the FAA's Complaint asserts that service may have alternatively occurred by fax, the FAA Rules of 

Practice do not specifically provide that a Complaint may be served by fax. 14 C.F.R. § 13.208(b). Nevertheless, 

the FAA may provide proof and make an argument regarding fax service, if such occurred. 

Page 2 of 5 
The record shows that the Complaint contained language, on a separately attached page, 

that advised the Respondent that he had 30 days to file an Answer. (Compl. 4.) Nevertheless, in 

his August 5, 2015 Answer, the prose Respondent asserted that "as far as I can tell, I have 

fulfilled any obligation that I may have had." (Ans. 2.) The Respondent also asserted, in his 

August 11, 2015 Response, that he "believes he made a good faith attempt to supply requested 

documents." (Resp. 1.) 

The parties obviously disagree regarding the status of the case and what should next 

occur. The FAA seeks a default judgment, while the Respondent asserts he has done everything 

he could, and has a right to a hearing. (Resp. 1.) After review of the submitted materials, it 

appears that both parties need to address certain matters. 

First, the FAA's assertion that June 19,2015 was the last day to file an answer is 

problematic. As noted above, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.211(e), five (5) additional days are 

added to the 30-day time period whenever a complaint is served by mail. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 

13 .212(b ), the date of service is not included in the calculation of time. Thus, even if the 

Complaint is found to have been served by certified mail on May 19, 2015, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 

§ 13.211(e) and 14 C.F.R. § 13.212(b), the due date for the filing of a timely answer would have 

been June 23,2015, not June 19, 2015. The FAA should be given an opportunity to supplement 

its Motion, in order to submit any additional proof of certified mail service and receipt, and to 

clarify the date the Respondent's answer was due. 

Second, even ifthe due date for the Respondent's Answer is found to be June 23, 2015 

instead of June 19, 2015, the prose Respondent's Answer, filed on August 5, 2015, appears to 

still be outside the applicable time period allowed. Although the Respondent asserted in his 

August 11, 2015 Response that he had "made a good faith attempt" to supply "requested 

documents" (Resp. 1 ), this appears to be referencing documents requested by the FAA during the 

investigation period. Thus, if it is assumed the FAA is correct in stating that service occurred on 

May 19, 2015the Respondent has not yet specifically addressed the issue of why he did not file a 

timely Answer after service of the Complaint. 

As noted above, a respondent who has not filed a timely answer to a complaint may avoid 

a default finding by presenting good cause reasons (if any) for the failure to file a timely answer. 

Page 3 of 5 
Therefore, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(f), the prose Respondent should be given an 

opportunity to state what reason(s), if any, there are for his failure to file a timely Answer and 

comply with the FAA's Rules ofPractice. 

Third, in regard to filing, the FAA's Rules of Practice require the parties to send to the 

FAA Hearing Docket (the record custodian) the original and one copy of any document filed in 

this proceeding. At the same time the document is filed with FAA Hearing Docket, the document 

must be served on the opposing party, 14 C.F.R. § 13.210, and filed with this Court. As noted 

earlier, the pro se Respondent has not been filing his documents in this case with the FAA 

Hearing Docket, and such omission must be corrected for future filings. 

Lastly, because ofthe reassignment of this case to the undersigned, there is no further email filing available for any documents filed with this Court. Instead, filing with the Court may 

be by mail, express delivery, or personal delivery. In addition, the parties should be aware that 

the deadline date for filing documents with this Court is the date that the documents are datestamped received at the Office of Hearings. Therefore, to ensure compliance with court-ordered 

deadlines, the parties are encouraged to fax a working copy of their materials to the Judge on or 

before the court-ordered deadline date. 

Conclusion 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.205, 13.209, 13.218, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, and after 

reviewing all pleadings and documents, as well as all relevant caselaw, decisions, regulations, 

statutory authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. On or before November 10,2015 the FAA may supplement its October 15,2015 

Renewed Motion by submitting any additional proof of fax service, or certified mail 

receipt or service, and clarifying the last date the Respondent's answer was due. 

2. On or before November 24, 2015, the prose Respondent may supplement his August 5, 

2015 Response by specifically stating any facts or reason(s) why he did not file a timely 

Answer to the Complaint. 

Page 4 of 5 
3. Pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.209(£) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 55, if the Respondent fails to file a 

written Response on or before November 24, 2015, providing good cause grounds for his 

late Answer, the FAA's October 15,2015 Renewed Motion might be deemed unopposed 

and might be granted, in all or in part, without further notice to the parties, and without 

further conference or hearing. 

4. For any documents filed with this Court, the parties shall attach a Certificate of Service, 

as described by 14 C.F .R. § 13.211 (c). This Certificate of Service shall affirm that the 

original document(s) was filed with the FAA Hearing Docket, pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§§ 

13.209(b) and 13.210, with a copy contemporaneously filed with the Court and served 

upon the opposing party. A Service List attached to this Order provides all the 

addressees and their addresses for a party's Certificate of Service. 

5. To ensure compliance with filing deadlines, the parties are encouraged to fax a working 

copy oftheir documents to the Judge (Fax No. 202-366-7536). 

6. The FAA's October 15, 2015 Renewed Motion is reserved until after November 24, 

2015. 

7. The Respondent's August 5, 2015 Motion to Dismiss is reserved until after November 

24,2015. 

8. If either the FAA or the Respondent has questions regarding the procedures contained in 

this Order, they may contact Mr. Cody Smith, Attorney-Advisor at the Office of Hearings 

(202-366-6941 ). 

Attachment: Service List 

Page 5 of 5 
Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0002 

Mr. David F. Shayne 

Complainant's Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue S.W. 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1847 

FPC{: 425-227-1007 

Dr. William Ames Curtright, DBA 

Respondent 

P.O. Box 1350 

Jefferson, OR 97352 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

ONE COPY 

2 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.