### In the Matter of: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC 

### Served: March 1, 2012 FAA DocketNo. (TO BE ASSIGNED) FDMS No. FAA 2011-1109 Administrative Law Judge: J. E. Sullivan QUENTON T. BROWN COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FORDEFAULT JUDGMENT 

### COMES NOWthe Complainant in this matter, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by and through its Regional Counsel for the Central Region, and pursuant to Section 13.218 ofthe Rules ofPractice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions (14 C.F.R. Section 13.201 et seq.), hereby files its motion for entry ofa defaultjudgment for the Complainant, and an initial decision finding a violation ofthe cited regulations alleged in the Complaint, and directing payment by Respondent of the proposed civil penalty in the amount of$11,000. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

### 1. On July 25, 2011, the FAA,**throu~h** 

### its counsel, issued a Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty (Notice) to Respondent proposing to assess a civil penalty in the amount of$11,000. ' I , , i · ' ' '

. , ,**~** 1 , 

### 2. The proposed assessment was based on the Respondent's alleged attempted assault ofa

. . . ..) 

### crewmember, interference with a crewmember inthe performance ofher duties, and intimidation and threatening ofa crewmember, all while aboard a Southwest Airlines flight enroute from Minneapolis, Minnesota, to St. Louis, Missouri, onDecember 6, 2010. 3. OnAugust 8, 2011, Respondent submitted a written response to the Notice setting forth his '

- " - ,. 

### version of.the alleged facts in**iss~e.** 

### 4. Foilowing a review ofRespondent's submission by 

### FAA counsel, a determination was made that Respondent's assertions were without merit based onthe available evidence. 

# RECEIVED MAR 

## 1 2

## 2012. 

# HEARING 

# DOCKET

### 5. A FinalNotice ofProposed Civil Penalty dated September 2, 2011, was issued to the Respondent creating an indebtedness to the United States on the part ofthe Respondent absent atimely filing ofan appeal with the Hearing Docket, Washington, DC. 6. On September 14, 2011, Respondent filed his appeal with the Hearing Docket. 7. On 

### September 21, 2011, FAA counsel filed a Complaint, with the Hearing Docket requiring the filing ofan Answer not later than 30 days following service ofthe Complaint. The certificate ofService was dated September 21, 2011. 8. Respondent failed to file an Answer to the Complaint. 9. By Notice ofAssignment issued on October 28, 2011, by ChiefAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ) Ronnie A. Yoder, the Respondent's case was assigned to ALJ J.E. Sullivan. 10. OnNovember 7, 2011, ALJ Sullivan issued a Notice ofLitigation Scheduling Telephone Conference to be held on November 22, 2011. 11. On November 22, 2011, Respondent failed to attend and participate in the noticed teleconference. 12. OnNovember 23, 2011, ALJ Sullivan issued an Order Setting Second Litigation Scheduling Telephone Conference to be held on December 7, 2011. 13. On December 7, 2011, Respondent and FAA cm.msel participated in the noticed teleconference. 14. On December 8, 2011, ALJ Sullivan issued an Order Setting Third Litigation Scheduling Telephone Conference to beheld on January 10,2012, ordering, inter alia, Respondent to file anAnswer on or before December 29, 2011. 15. Respondent failed to file an Answer on or before December 29, 2011. 16. On January 9, 2012, FAA counsel filed a Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted pursuant to Sections 13.209(b) and (f), and Section 13.218, ofthe Rules ofPractice inFAA Civil Penalty Actions (14 C.P.R. Section 13.201 et seq.).

217. OnJanuary 10, 2012, Respondent failed to attend/participate inthe noticed teleconference. 18. OnJanuary 13, 2012, ALJ Sullivan issued an Order to Show Cause Why Motionto Deem Allegations Admitted Should NotBe Granted, providing Respondent until January 27, 2012,

to file a written answer to the Order stating whythe FAA's motion should not be granted, and also ordered Respondent to file a written Answer to the Complaintno later than January 27,2012. 19. Respondent failed to file a response to the ALI's Order on or before January 27,2012. 20. Respondentfailed to file anAnswer on or before January 27, 2012. 21. OnFebruary 2, 2012, ALJ Sullivan issued an Order Granting Motionto DeemAllegations Admitted and Granting Other Relief. LEGAL AUTHORITY FORGRANTING MOTION 1. Sections 13.205(9), 13.215, and 13. 218(e) ofthe Rules ofPractice inFAA Civil Penalty Actions (14 C.F.R. Section 13.201 et seq.) authorize the ALJ grant this motion, and enter a defaultjudgmentfor the Complainant, based on a review ofthe record inits entirety and a follow-on finding offact that Respondenthas failed to plead, defend, or otherwisehas implicitly abandoned or constructively withdrawn his appeal filed on September 14,2011, through inaction. 2. Rule 55, Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure, likewise authorizes the ALJto enter a default judgmentunder similar facts and circumstances. ARGUMENT The record showsthatthe factual allegations asserted in the Complaint are deemed admitted based onRespondent's persistentrefusal to file an Answer, i.e., a responsive pleading, to the Complaint ofrecord. Consequently, there is no dispute as to the facts inthis matter. Respondenthas refusedto file a response to Complainant's Motionto Deem Allegations Admitted.

3Respondent has repeatedly refused to comply with the ALJ's orders. Respondent has failed to submit any explanationthat might show good cause for his cited refusals to act inthis matter following the filing ofhis appeal on September 14, 2011. Itis axiomatic thatthrough his failure to take appropriate action Respondent has persistently shown a lack ofinterest inpursuing his appeal filed on September 14, 2011. Itis irrefutable thatRespondent's entrenched refusalto participate in the prosecution ofhis appeal is demonstrative ofan intention to abandon his appeal or constructively withdraw the subject appeal. Based onthe record to date, this matter is ripe for the issuance ofa defaultjudgmentinfavor ofthe Complainant, and qualifies for the issuance ofan initial decision finding a violation ofthe cited regulations alleged in the Complaint, and directing payment by Respondent ofthe proposed civil penalty in the amount of$11,000. WHEREFORE, based onthe foregoing, Complainant respectfully requests that the allegations contained inthe Complainant's Complaint be deemed admitted, and that any future hearing scheduled in this matter be limited to the issue ofsanction. Dated this 1st day ofMarch 2012. Respectfully submitted, A. Lester Haizlip

# z;:oo;t~

·

# ~b~arnacho

SeniorEnforcement Attorney Federal Aviation Administration 901 Locust Street, Room 506 Kansas City, MO 64106 (816) 329-3765; Fax (816) 329-3771 ATTORNEY FORCOMPLAINANT

4 

### IQuenton T. Brown FDMS No. FAA 2011-1109

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify tbat I have this date placed in the United States mail, postage prepaid, a copy ofCOMPLAINANT'S MOTION FORDEFAULT JUDGMNET addressed to: Quenton T. Brown 2440 Woodwind Trail Melbourne, FL 32953 Quenton T. Brown 622 W. Miller Street Orlando, Florida 32805-4502 I hereby certify that I have this date provided a copy, via facsimile transmission, and placed inthe United States mail, postageprepaid, a copy, addressed to: The Honorable J. E. Sullivan Administrative Law Judge U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590 FAX: (202) 366-7536 I hereby certify tbat I have this date placed in tbe United States mail, postage prepaid, the original and 1 copy addressed to: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000 Datedthis 1st day ofMarch 2012.

5