UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTIO N. . Ot C S ^ 2C? 3 FEDERA LAVIATIO NADMINISTRATIO N ! ^lW >

WASHINGTON , D.C . J& B ENTERPRISES , INC . d^/a . RHYTH M SHINE , Complainant , METROPOLITA N NASHVILL E AIRPOR T AUTHORITY , FA A Docke t No . 16-08-0 7

Respondent . RESPONDEN T METROPOLITA NNASHVILL EAIRPOR T AUTHORITY' S

OPPOSITIO N T O COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RA NEXTENSIO NO FTIM E Respondent , Metropolita n Nashvill e Airport Authorit y ("Respondent " o r "MNAA" ) answer s i n opposition , pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.19(c) , Complainant' s Motio nfor

a n Extensio n o f

Tim e t o file it s Reply . Responden t state s a s follows : 1 . MNA A timel y filedit s Answe r t o J&B' s Complain t

o nNovembe r

3 , 2008 . 2 . Pursuan t

t o 1 4 C.F.R . § § 16.17(c ) an d16.23(e) , th e Complainan t ha dunti l Novembe r

16 , 200 8 t o file aReply , i f i t desire dt o d o so . 3 . A s o f

Novembe r

16 , 2008 , Complainan t

hadfiledneithe r

aRepl y no r

aMotion for an Extensio n o f

Time . 4 . Onl y o n Decembe r 11 , 2008 , nearl y amonthafter it s Repl y wa s due , di d Complainan t

file aMotionfo

r a nExtensio no f

Time . 5 . Eve nth e timel y filin g o f amotio nfor

a nextensio no f

tim e i s not

sufficient , b y itself , t o exten dth e deadlin e for filing th e documen t

that i s subjec t t o th e deadline . 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.19(a) . Onl y a nFA A orde r

ca nexten dsuc hadeadline . 1 4 C.F.R . § § 16.11(a) , 16.19(a) .6 . Complainant' s Motio n for a nExtensio no f

Tim e shoul db e denie da s both untimel y an dprejudicia l t o Respondent , MNAA . 7 . It woul db e unfairl y burdensom e t o Responden t MNAA , whic hha s alread y expende dconsiderabl e time , effor t an dmone y defendin g thi s fiivolous Complaint , i f

th e FA A wer e t o ignor e it s ow nRule s an dallo w Complainan t t o file agrossl y untimel y Reply . Thi s woul dundul y dela y thi s proceedin g an dcompe l Responden t

t o spen dadditiona l time , effor t an dmone y i norde r

t o file arebuttal . 8 . Complainant' s motio n doe s no t specif y th e lengtho f

tim e sough t

for th e extension , bu t

i t ha s alread y ha dmor e tha nthirt y day s beyon dth e deadlin e for filing aresponse . I f

Complainan t

ha dtimel y filed areques t for extensio nan d FA A ha dgrante da30-da y extension . Complainant' s Repl y woul dhav e bee ndu e awee k ago , o n Decembe r

16 . 9 . Complainant' s attorne y give s n o reaso nwh y h e wa s unabl e t o file aMotio nfo r a n Extensio n o f

Tim e before Complainant' s Repl y wa s du e o nNovembe r 16 , 2008 , bu t wa s abl e t o file aMotio nfor anExtensio no f

Tim e o nbehal f

o f Complainan t J& B o n Decembe r

11 , 2008 . 10 . Complainant' s attorney , Mr . Robinson , allege s that h e ha s close ddow nhi s offic e an dthat Complainan t

J& B "ha s retained " (Motio na t Para . 3 ) o r

seek s "t o retain " (Motio n at

Para . 6 ) som e uimame dsubstitut e counsel , but apparentl y Mr . Robinson , no t

th e allege dsubstitut e counsel , represente dJ& B a s o f Decembe r

11 , 2008 , whe n he , no t

anothe r counsel , filedJ&B' s Motio nfor anExtensio no f Time . 11 . N o documen t

evidencin g asubstitutio no f counse l o r

additio no f

counse l ha s bee n filedan dserve db y J& B i n thi s case , a s require db y 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.13(f) . 12 . I f thi s motio n i s granted , an y ne w counse l comin g int o th e proceedin g wil l likel y see k ye t mor e tim e t o familiariz e himsel f withth e extensiv e recor dan dpleading s before filing aReply , fiirther undul y delayin g thi s case . 13 . Pursuan t

t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.2 3 th e onl y tw o require dpleading s i naPart 1 6 Proceedin g ar e aComplain t an da nAnswer . 14 . Unde r

th e rule s governin g thi s proceeding , th e Complainan t wa s require dt o includ e withit s Complaint , al l argumen t an devidenc e i t

believe dwas necessar y t o support

it s complaint . 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.23(b) . 15 . Pursuan t

t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.23(e) , "[t]h e complainan t ma y file aRepl y withi n1 0 day s o f th e dat e o f

servic e o f

th e answer. " (emphasi s added. ) 16 . B y failin g t o file aRepl y o r Reques t for anExtensio no f

Tim e withi n1 0 day s o f servic e o f th e Answer , Complainan t waive dan y righ t

t o file th e permitted , bu t no t required . Reply .17 . FA A look s t o federal law whe ndecidin g procedura l issue s o nwhic hPart 1 6 i s silent . Se e FA A Orde r

date d91X1101 , Lo-Yu-Sunv . Por t o f Seattle , FA A Docke t No . 16-06-1 3 a

t 5 (lookin g t o Fed . R . Civ . P . 15(a) an drelate dcas e law fo r guidanc e o nComplainant' s reques t fo r leav e t o amen dcomplaint , a nissu e no t addresse db y th e Part

1 6 rules : "W e loo k

t o Federa l la w whe ndecidin g th e issu e o f complain t

amendmen t

unde r Part 1 6 becaus e that

rul e contain s n o specifi c amendmen t

provision." ) 18 . Unde r

th e Federa l Rule s o f

Civi l Procedure , acourt

ma y gran t

anextensio no f tim e requeste db y motio n after adeadlin e ha s passe donl y wher e failure t o mee t th e deadlin e wa s th e resul t o f excusabl e neglect . Fed . R . Civ . P . 6(b) . 19 . Unde r

Rul e 6(b) , z^post

-deadlin e extensio ni s permissibl e "onl y wher e th e failur e t o mee t th e deadlin e 'wa s th e resul t o f excusabl e neglect."' ' Lujanv . Nationa l Wildlif e Federation , 49 7 U.S . 871 , 87 3 (1990 ) (denyin g reques t wher e movan t mad e n o showin g o f

caus e an dfailure t o timel y file di dnot resul t fi^omexcusabl e neglect) (emphasi s added) . 20 . A finding o f

excusabl e neglec t

unde r Rul e 6(b ) require s tha t

th e movan t demonstrat e areasonabl e basi s for not complyin g withi nth e specifie dperiod . Mar s Stee l Corp . v . Continenta l Illinoi s Nat' I Ban k an dTrus t

Co . o f Chicago , 120 F.R.D . 51,5 2 (N.D . 111 . 1988) . 21 . Complainan t

ha s mad e n o showin g o f excusabl e neglec t

o r goo dcaus e wh y thi s extensio nshoul db e granted . Complainant' s attorne y state s that hi s organizatio n ha s los t som e fiinding an dstaff

, but doe s no t mak e an y attemp t

t o excus e hi s failure t o file asimpl e motio nfor extensio nwithi nth e ten-da y perio do f tim e provide di n Part

16 . 22 . Neithe r

"simpl e inadvertence, " Putna mv . Morris , 83 3 F.2 d903 , 90 5 (10thCir . 1987) , "mistak e o f

counsel, " id. , no r

"th e bus y schedul e o f

th e movant' s attorney, " Taumb y v . U.S , 90 2 F.2 d136 2 (8" " Cir . 1990 ) amount s t o excusabl e neglect . 23 . Moreover , retentio n o f ne w counse l doe s not

constitut e excusabl e neglec t wher e th e previou s counse l represente dth e movin g part y throughou t th e filing period . Se e Cuttl e B y an dThroug hStickney v . Federa l Employee s Meta l Trade s Council , 62 3 F . Supp . 1154 , 115 5 (D . Me . 1985 ) (n o excusabl e neglec t wher e extensio n wa s requeste db y co-counse l wh o ha djus t recentl y filedhi s appearance , bu t wher e filings showe dtha t plaintif f wa s represente db y othe r co-counse l pas t

th e require dfiling date : "N o showin g o f excusabl e neglec t

ha s bee nmad e here . In fact , n o reaso n a

t al l ha s bee n give nfor

th e failure t o file. Co-counse l merel y state dthat h e ha s recentl y filedhi s appearanc e an dneed s mor e tim e t o prepare . Submission s i n th e file sho w that plaintif f wa s represente db y th e othe r co-counse l pas t th e require dfiling date , ye t n o excus e for

hi s dilator y conduc t

i s provided . Th e Court

must , therefore , den y plaintiffs motio nfor enlargemen t

o f time." )24 . Give n that Mr . Robinso n represente dComplainan t throug hth e filing o f

it s Motio n o n Decembe r

11 , Mr . Robinson' s assertio nthat th e as-yet-unname dne w counse l need s tim e t o "familiariz e himsel f withth e matte r

an dmov e forward " i s unavailing . 25 . A motio n for

th e enlargemen t

o f tim e i s denie di nth e absenc e o f ashowin g o f excusabl e neglect . Lujan at 873 ; se e als o Cuttle , 62 3 F . Supp . at 115 5 (denyin g reques t for extensio n o f

time) . 26 . "Part

1 6 i s a n accelerate dadministrativ e process , intende dt o expedit e substantiall y th e handlin g an ddispositio no f airport relate dcomplaints . 6 1 Fed . Re g 53,99 8 (October

16,1996). " FA A Order , 9/12/07 , a t 5 , i nLo-Yu-Sunv. Por t o f Seattle , FA A Docke t

No . 16-06-13 . 27 . Complainant' s motio n woul db e denie dunde r th e Federa l Rule s o f

Civi l Procedure , t o whic hFA A look s for guidanc e o nprocedura l matter s no t explicitl y covere db y Par t

16 . 28 . Moreover , i t

woul dmak e amockery o f th e Part 1 6 Rules , whic har e intende dt o expedit e th e handlin g an ddispositio no f airport complaints , i f

th e FA A allowe d Complainant' s attorney s t o ignor e th e Rule s withou t caus e an dgrante dthei r untimel y motio n for

a n extensio nt o file aRepl y that , i nan y event , i s not require d i n orde r for FA A t o rul e o n th e Complaint . Se e 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.23 . 29 . Accordingly , MNA A urge s th e FA A t o den y Complainant' s Reques t Fo r A n Extensio n o f

Time . Respectfiill y submitte dthi s 23" * da y o f December , 2008 :

Robert Watso n Metropolita n Nashvill e Airport Authorit y On e Termina l Drive , Suit e 50 1 Nashville , TN3721 4 Telephone : (615 ) 275-163 7 Facsimile : (615)275-430 2 Thoma s Devin e KAPLA N KIRSC H & ROCKWEL LLL P 100 1 Connecticu t

Av e NW , Suit e 80 0 Washington , D C 2003 6 Telephone : (202 ) 955-560 0 Facsimile : (202 ) 955-561 6 Arthu r P . Ber g KAPLA NKIRSC H & ROCKKVEL LLLP 64 1 Lexingto nAve . Suit e 140 9 New York , N Y 1002 2 Telephone : (212 ) 328-951 5 Facsimile : (646)514-544 0 LisaReynold s KAPLA N KIRSC H & ROCKWEL LLL P 167 5 Broadway , Suit e 230 0 Denver , C O 8020 2 Telephone : (303 ) 825-700 0 Facsimile : (303 ) 825-700 5 Counse l fo r

Responden t

Metropolita nNashvill e Airpor t Authorit yCERTIFICAT EO FSERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y that I hav e thi s da y serve datru e cop y o f th e foregoin g RESPONDEN T METROPOLITA NNASHVILL EAIRPOR T AUTHORITY' S OPPOSITIO N T O COMPLAINANT' S REQUES T FO RA NEXTENSIO N O F TIM Eo n th e followin g partie s a t th e followin g addresse s b y overnigh t mai l thi s 23^*

^ day o f December , 2008 : Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l ATTN : FA A Par t

1 6 Airport Proceeding s Docket , AG C - 61 0 Roo m92 5 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Federa l Expres s No , 797 2 072 8 898 8 ElizabethNewma n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Roo m923- M 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Federa l Expres s No . 796 2 108 5 007 5 Anthon y W . Robinso n Blain e A'mmo nWhit e MBELDE F 110 0 Mercantil e Lane , Suit e 115- A Largo , M D 2077 4 Federa l Expres s No . 797 2 073 7 701 2 Raymon dG . Prince , Esquir e Tennesse e LitigationCounse l PRINC E& HELLINGER , P.C . 15 0 Secon dAvenu e North , Suit e 30 0 Nashville , Tennesse e 37201-190 2 Federa l Expres s No . 797 2 074 3 779 8 Sharo nLon g Airport s an dEnvironmenta l Law Division Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Federa l Expres s No . 796 2 110 0 187 3

Lis aA . Reynol c for Metropolita nNashvill e Airport Authority