SERVED: April 22, 2016 

. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

·WASHINGTON, DC 

In The Matter Of: ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2015-3320 

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE CO. 

Case No. 2012S0700374 

Respondent 

ORDER DEEMING THE FAA'S RESPONSE TO THE RESPONDENT'S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION UNTIMELY AND MOOT 

On April 4, 2016, ~he Respondent, United Parcel Service Co., filed a Motion for 

Extension of Time ("Motion"), pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.213(b). 

On April 5, 2016, an Order Granting the Respondent's Motion for Extension of Time and 

Directing/Reserving Other Relief ("Order") was filed. 

Seven (7) days later, on April 12, 2016, the FAA filed the Complainant's Response to 

Respondent's Motion for Extension of Time and Clarification of Consent to Extention [sic] of 

Time ("Response"). 

A. Brief Discussion 

The FAA's April 12, 2016 Response does not move for any relief from the April 5, 2016 

Order. Rather, the FAA does not reference or discuss the April 5, 2016 Order at all, even though 

a courtesy copy of the Order was faxed to both the FAA and the Respondent on April 5, 2016, 

the day it was issued. (Order, Cert. of.Service.) 

The Respondent's April 5, 2016 Motion was brought pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.213(b), 

which allows either party an opportunity to request an extension of time from the court "not later 

than 7 days before the document is due." 14 C.F.R. § 13.213(b). If a request for extension is filed 

within 7 days of a deadline, the movant must provide good cause for the extension request. Id. 
A motion brought under 14 C.F.R. § 13.213(b) does not require the court to wait for a 

response from the opposing party prior to ruling on the motion. Indeed, it is presupposed that the 

movant has either obtain an agreement for the requested extension of time from the opposing 

side under 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(a), failed to obtain such an agreement, or that the movant has 

already utilized its opportunity for one (1) agreed extension.14 C.F.R. § 13.218(a). 

Given the shortness of time allowed for making the motion, it is clear that the intent of 14 

C.F .R. § 13 .2 l 3(b) is for the court to rule on a requested extension expeditiously, based solely on 

the movant' s request. 1 The rule does not prohibit the opposing side from filing an optional 

response to a motion for extension, but such response may be considered only if filed prior to the 

court ruling. It should also be noted that the Rules of Practice do not mandate any specific limit 

on an extension period, either when the parties agree to an extension of time, or when the court 

rules on a motion for extension of time. 14 C.F.R. § 13.213(a) and (b). 

In the instant case, the record shows that the Complaint was served by U.S. Mail on 

March 9, 2016. (Compl., Cert. of Service.) Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.209, 13.211, and 13.212, 

the Respondent's answer would have been due on or before April 14, 2016. On April 4, 2016, 

ten (10) days prior to its April 14, 2016 deadline for the answer, the Respondent filed its' Motion 

for reli~f. The Respondent's Motion was timely filed pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.213(b). 

The record further reflects that the Court issued the Order granting the Respondent's 

Motion on April 5, 2016 (i.e., nine (9) days before the April 14, 2016 deadline for the 

Respondent's answer). The Order was based solely on the Respondent's materials, since the 

FAA had not filed any optional Response. In this April 5, 2016 Order, the Court granted the 

Respondent's request for an extension,2 based on the Respondent's assertions of party 

agreement, and because the extension appeared to serve the interests of the parties as well as 

judicial economy. (Order, 1-2.) 

1 For example, an answering party responding to motions brought pursuant to 14 C.F .R. § 13 .218 is specifically 

allowed fifteen (15) days for filing a response. 14 C.F.R. § 13.21 l(e) and 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(d). This time frame 

must be deemed inapplicable under 14 C.F.R. § 13.213(b), since a movant may bring a motion for extension seven 

, (7) days or less from a deadline, and is entitled to receive an automatic grant of extension if the court fails to rule on 

the motion before the expiration of the deadline. 

2 Had the Court failed to rule on the Respondent's Motion on or before April 14, 2016, the rule provides an 

automatic twenty (20) day extension from the April 14, 2016 deadline. 14 C.F.R. § 13.213(c). 

Page 2 of 3 
Thereafter, on April .12, 2016 (i.e., seven (7) days after the Court ruled on the Motion, 

and two (2) days before the original April 14, 2016 deadline), the FAA filed its Response. This 

Response to the Respondent's April 4, 2016 Motion for an extension of time was untimely. It is 

moot because the Court has already ruled upon the Motion,3 as required by 14 C.F.R. § 

13.213(b). 

B. Conclusion 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 13.205(a)(6), and after reviewing all relevant caselaw, regulations, 

statutory authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The FAA's Response to the Respondent's Motion for Extension of Time is untimely and 

deemed moot. 

Attachment: Service List 

3 In some rare instances, a party may file substantive content under an improper document caption title. The Court 

may, at its discretion, sua sponte assign the proper caption title to the document. However, in this case, the Court 

cannot re-caption or consider the FAA 's Response as an Inferred Motion for Reconsideration, since the FAA did not 

acknowledge receipt of the April 5, 2016 Order or discuss why such Order should be reconsidered on a potential 

error of law or fact. 

Page 3 of 3 
Docket No. FAA-2016-3320 

(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 2Wl 0001 

Mr. Ryan M. Landers 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Enforcement Division, Southern Team 

1701 Columbia Ave 

College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Mr. Paul Alp 

Respondent's Counsel 

Crowell & Moring LLP 

1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20004 

TEL: 202-624-2500 

FAX: 202-628-5116 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (El 1-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

ONE COPY 

Mr. Winston E. Miller 

Respondent's Counsel 

Frost, Brown, Todd, LLC 

400 Market Street, 32°d Floor 

Louisville, KY 40202-3363 

TEL: 502-589-0296 

FAX: 502-581-1087 

Ms. Meaghan G. Byrd 

Respondent's Counsel 

Alston & Byrd LLP 

One Atlantic Center 

1201 W. Peachtree Street 

Atlanta, GA 30309-3424 

TEL: 404-881-7245 

FAX: 404-253-8510 

1 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 2WIOOO, Washington, 

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