In the Matter of: 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Served: March 1, 2012 

FAA Docket No. (TO BE ASSIGNED) 

FDMS No. FAA 2011-1109 

Administrative Law Judge: J. E. Sullivan 

QUENTON T. BROWN 

COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

COMES NOW the 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 of the 

Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions (14 C.F.R. Section 13.201 et seq.), hereby files its 

motion for entry of a default judgment for the Complainant, and an initial decision finding a 

violation of the 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 of Proposed 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 of a . . . ..) 

crewmember, interference with a crewmember in the performance of her duties, and 

intimidation and threatening of a crewmember, all while aboard a Southwest Airlines flight 

enroute from Minneapolis, Minnesota, to St. Louis, Missouri, on December 6, 2010. 

3. On August 8, 2011, Respondent submitted a written response to the Notice setting forth his ' - " - ,. 

version of.the alleged facts in iss~e. 

4. Foil owing a review of Respondent's submission by FAA counsel, a determination was made 

that Respondent's assertions were without merit based on the available evidence. 

RECEIVED 

MAR 1 2 2012. 

HEARING DOCKET 
5. A Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty dated September 2, 2011, was issued to the 

Respondent creating an indebtedness to the United States on the part of the Respondent 

absent a timely filing of an 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 of an Answer not later than 30 days following service of the Complaint. The 

certificate of Service was dated September 21, 2011. 

8. Respondent failed to file an Answer to the Complaint. 

9. By Notice of Assignment issued on October 28, 2011, by Chief Administrative Law Judge 

(ALJ) Ronnie A. Yoder, the Respondent's case was assigned to ALJ J.E. Sullivan. 

10. On November 7, 2011, ALJ Sullivan issued a Notice of Litigation 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. On November 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 be held on January 10,2012, ordering, inter alia, Respondent to 

file an Answer 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, of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil 

Penalty Actions (14 C.P.R. Section 13.201 et seq.). 

2 
17. On January 10, 2012, Respondent failed to attend/participate in the noticed teleconference. 

18. On January 13, 2012, ALJ Sullivan issued an Order to Show Cause Why Motion to Deem 

Allegations Admitted Should Not Be Granted, providing Respondent until January 27, 2012, 

to file a written answer to the Order stating why the FAA's motion should not be granted, 

and also ordered Respondent to file a written Answer to the Complaint no later than January 

27,2012. 

19. Respondent failed to file a response to the ALI's Order on or before January 27,2012. 

20. Respondent failed to file an Answer on or before January 27, 2012. 

21. On February 2, 2012, ALJ Sullivan issued an Order Granting Motion to Deem Allegations 

Admitted and Granting Other Relief. 

LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR GRANTING MOTION 

1. Sections 13.205(9), 13.215, and 13. 218(e) of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty 

Actions (14 C.F.R. Section 13.201 et seq.) authorize the ALJ grant this motion, and enter a 

default judgment for the Complainant, based on a review of the record in its entirety and a 

follow-on finding of fact that Respondent has failed to plead, defend, or otherwise has 

implicitly abandoned or constructively withdrawn his appeal filed on September 14,2011, 

through inaction. 

2. Rule 55, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, likewise authorizes the ALJ to enter a default 

judgment under similar facts and circumstances. 

ARGUMENT 

The record shows that the factual allegations asserted in the Complaint are deemed admitted 

based on Respondent's persistent refusal to file an Answer, i.e., a responsive pleading, to the 

Complaint of record. Consequently, there is no dispute as to the facts in this matter. 

Respondent has refused to file a response to Complainant's Motion to Deem Allegations 

Admitted. 

3 
Respondent has repeatedly refused to comply with the ALJ's orders. 

Respondent has failed to submit any explanation that might show good cause for his cited 

refusals to act in this matter following the filing of his appeal on September 14, 2011. 

It is axiomatic that through his failure to take appropriate action Respondent has persistently 

shown a lack of interest in pursuing his appeal filed on September 14, 2011. 

It is irrefutable that Respondent's entrenched refusal to participate in the prosecution of his 

appeal is demonstrative of an intention to abandon his appeal or constructively withdraw the subject 

appeal. 

Based on the record to date, this matter is ripe for the issuance of a default judgment in favor 

of the Complainant, and qualifies for the issuance of an initial decision finding a violation of the 

cited regulations alleged in the Complaint, and directing payment by Respondent of the proposed 

civil penalty in the amount of$11,000. 

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Complainant respectfully requests that the 

allegations contained in the Complainant's Complaint be deemed admitted, and that any future 

hearing scheduled in this matter be limited to the issue of sanction. 

Dated this 1st day of March 2012. 

Respectfully submitted, 

A. Lester Haizlip 

z;:oo;t~ · ~b~arnacho Senior Enforcement Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

901 Locust Street, Room 506 

Kansas City, MO 64106 

(816) 329-3765; Fax (816) 329-3771 

ATTORNEY FOR COMPLAINANT 

4 
Quenton 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 

of COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT 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 in the 

United States mail, postage prepaid, a copy, addressed to: 

The Honorable J. E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey 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 

Dated this 1st day of March 2012. 

5