BEFORE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

THE FLIGHT SHOP, INC. d/b/a 

PROFESSIONAL AIR and AERO 

FACILITIES, LLC 

Complainants, 

V. 

CITY OF BEND, OREGON 

Respondent. 

Docket No. 16-14-12 

UNOPPOSED MOTION OF THE CITY OF BEND, OREGON 

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME 

Designated for service of process on behalf of the City of Bend, Oregon: 

Gary Firestone, Esq. 

CITY OF BEND 

CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 

City Hall, 710 NW Wall Street 

P.O. Box 431 

Bend, OR 97709 

Email: gfirestone@bendoregon.gov 

Phone: 541-693-2100 

Fax: 541-385-6676 

Robert Franz, Esq. 

LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT E. FRANZ JR. 

730 B Street 

P.O. Box 62 

Springfield, OR 97477 

Email: rfranz@franzlaw. comcastbiz.net 

Phone: 541-741-8220 

Fax: 541-741-8234 

December 30, 2014 

Pablo 0. Nliesch, Esq. 

SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID LLP 

1875 Eye Street, NW 

Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20006 

Email: pablo.nuesch@spiegelmcd.com 

Phone: 202-879-4000 

Fax: 202-393-2866 
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

THE FLIGHT SHOP, INC. d/b/a 

PROFESSIONAL AIR and AERO 

FACILITIES, LLC. 

Complainant, 

v. Docket No. 16-14-12 

CITY OF BEND, OREGON 

Respondent. 

UNOPPOSED MOTION OF THE CITY OF BEND, OREGON 

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME 

Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. §§ 16.19 and 16.11(a), Respondent, the City of Bend, Oregon 

("City"), requests leave to file and hereby files this unopposed motion for a 24-day extension of 

time in which to file its response to the complaint. In support of its motion, the City states as 

follows: 

1. Complainants, The Flight Shop, Inc. d/b/a Professional Air and Aero Facilities, 

LLC, filed a Part 16 complaint dated December 5, 2014, against the City alleging several 

violations of Federal law and Grant Assurances. On December 24, 2014, FAA issued a notice 

that the complaint had been docketed. The Notice of Docketing was received by the City's 

counsel on December 29, 2014. Under Part 16 procedural rules, an answer must be filed "within 

20 days of the date of service of the FAA notification." § 16.23(d). In lieu of answer, a motion 

to dismiss and/or a motion for summary judgment may be filed "within 20 days after the date of 
service of the FAA notification of docketing." § 16.26. Currently, the City's answer, or in the 

alternative, its motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment, are due on January 13, 2015. 

2. On Monday, December 29, 2014, the undersigned contacted Leonard Kirsch, 

counsel for Complainants, who, on Tuesday December 30th, advised that Complainants do not 

oppose this request. 

3. This request for an extension of time is not being made to delay the proceeding. 

Complainants have raised numerous issues that require proper responses, and the City believes 

that a 24-day extension of time is both necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete 

consideration of those issues. 

4. Part 16 procedural rules are "intended to expedite substantially the handling and 

disposition of airport related complaints" (61 Fed. Reg. 53998 (Oct. 16, 1996)), and FAA 

recently revised the rules to allow "sponsors to seek early disposition of complaints" in order "to 

provide for more efficient use of agency and stakeholder time and resources during complaint 

proceedings" (78 Fed. Reg. 56136 (Sept. 12, 2013)). Nevertheless, the rules themselves 

explicitly provide that an extension of time may be granted "where necessary or appropriate for a 

fair and complete consideration of matters before the agency." § 16.11(a). Indeed, FAA has 

granted unopposed requests for extensions of time to file an answer that extended the deadline 

for several weeks. See, e.g., Ray's Flying Club v. City of Fullerton, FAA Docket 16-04-04 

(granting a 63-day extension oftime to file answer); NBAA v. City of Santa Monica, FAA Docket 

16-03-11 (granting a cumulative 74-day extension oftime to file answer). 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the City hereby respectfully requests a 24-day extension of 

time to file its response in this investigatory proceeding, so that its answer, or in the alternative 

2 
its motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment, will be due on or before Friday, February 6, 

2015. 

December 30,2014 

Respectfully submitted, 

£Jeo~L Pablo 0. Nliesch 

Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP 

1875 Eye St., N.W. 

Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20006 

Email: pablo.nuesch@spiegelmcd.com 

Phone: 202-879-4000 

Fax: 202-393-2866 

Counsel for the City of Bend, Oregon 

3 
Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that in accordance with 14 CFR § § 16.15 and 16.13(h), I have today, the 

30th day of December, 2014, caused a true copy of the foregoing Unopposed Motion for 

Extension of Time to be served electronically on the following: 

Leonard D. Kirsch, Esq. 

McBreen & Kopko 

500 North Broadway 

Jericho, NY 11753 

lkirsch@mklawnyc.com 

Martin E. Hansen, Esq. 

Francis, Hansen & Martin LLP 

1148 NW Hill St. 

Bend, OR 97701 

meh@francishansen.com 

Attorneys for Complainants 

~o~u~L Pablo 0. Ntiesch