01/08/201 0 1G:3 5 FA X 202483514 2 FA A

BiiFdR E UNITED STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRAN S * DM S iOOI/01 1 JA N - 7 201 0

TNTHEMA'I'lERO F SOUTHWES T AIRFRAM EANi: ) TAN K SERVICHS , Respondcm , FA AInvestigatio nNo. : 2008SO70021 5 FA ADocke t No. : CPSOOO

l 0 DM S No . FAA-2009-072 3 The Uonorabl e Judg e Isaac D . Benki n PRE-TRIA L BRIEF : MEMORANDU M O F POINT S AN D AUTHORITIE S O F LAW (RESPONDEATSUPERIOR ) Th e followin g Memorandu m o fPoint s an d Authoritie s i s offere d t o facilitat e tria l i n th e above-captione d matter . I t addresse s th e lawo fRespondea t Superio ra s i t applie s t o thi s case . Th e reaso n tha t respondea t superio r\ & a ke yissu e i n thi s cas e i s becaus e ther e i s a longstandin g principl e tha t th e action s o fordinar yemployee s ar e normall y no t Imputabl e t o th e employer . Ge e v . Principi . 28 9 F.3 d 342 , 34 6 (5t h Gir . 2002) . The yar e onl yImputabl e whe n i t i s show n tha t respondea t superio r(o r som e othe ranalogou s theoryo fvicariou s liability ) applies . 

### 1 . Florid a La wo fRespondea t Superio rApplie s t o th e Cas e a t Ba r Thi s cas e concern s a toolbo xtha t wa s shippe d vi a Fede xb yMr . Ale x Pyatigorsky . A t th e tim e o fth e shipment , Mr . Pyatigorsk ywa s o n hi s wa yhom e t o Boynto n Beach , Florid a afte rcompletin g a jo b i n Tampa , Florida , Hi s rout e hom e too k

a detour , though , whe n h e go t int o a n automobil e acciden t i n hi s persona l vehicle . Afte rbein g advise d byth e Presiden t o fth e compan yt o ren t a ca ran d us e i t t o retur n home , Mr . F^yatigorsk ydecide d instea d t o fl yhome . Afte r decidin g t o fl yhome , h e decide d t o shi p hi s tool s t o hi s hom e vi a FedE xservice . SOUTHWES T AIRFRAM EAND 1 ANK-' S PRii TRIALPOINT. S AN

D AUTTfORlllE S Pag e 1 Washingto nAviatio nGroup , P C an dih e La w Office s o f

Jaso nA . Dicksliiin 223 3 WisconsinAvenue , NW . Siiii e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-894 701/08/201 0 1G:3 5 FAX 202493514 2 FA A ^ DM S @l002/0 n

Th e shipmen t reflect s a potentia l regulator yviolatio n becaus e th e Administrato r o fth e FA Aallege s tha t th e toolbo xi n th e shipmen t containe d hazardou s materials . On e o fth e ke yissue s i n thi s cas e wil l b e whethe rth e Respondent , Southwes t Airfram e an d Tank , i s responsibl e fo rth e allege d act s o fAle xPyatigorsky . Th e governmen t allege s tha t Southwes t Airfram e an d Tan k i s vicariousl yresponsibl e unde rth e doctrin e ofrsspondea t superior . Ther e i s n o federa l lawofrespondea t superior . E.g . Monei l v . Departmen t o f Soc . Svcs. . 43 6 U.S . 658 , 69 3 (1978 ) (explainin g tha t Congres s chos e no t t o creat e a federa l lawo frespondea t superio ri n th e Civi l Right s Act , an d indicatin g bycorollar

ytha t ther e i s n o genera l federa l la wo frespondea t superior) . Instead , th e court s "borrow " substantiv e stat e lawfro m th e stat e i n whic h th e allege d violatio n occurred . I n thi s case , i t i s undispute d tha t th e allege d violatio n (thi s allege d shipment ) occurre d i n Florida , s o Florid a lawapplie s wit h respect t o interpretatio n o fth e doctrin e o frespondea t superior . 

### 2 . Unde rFlorid a Law , Respondea t Superio rOnl yApplie s Wher e th e Ac t (1 ) Wa s Withi n th e Scop e o fEmploymen t AN D (2 ) Further s a Purpos e o rInteres t o fth e Employe r Unde rth e doctrin e o frespondea t superior , a n employe rcanno t b e hel d liabl e fo r th e act o fa n employee , unles s th e ac t wa s committe d (1 ) withi n th e scop e o fth e employmen t an d (2 ) t o furthe ra purpos e o rinteres t o fth e employer , Unite d Technologie s Corp . v . Mazer . 55 6 F.3d 1260 . 127 1 (if^Cir . 2009V reivin g o n Iglesi a Cristian a La Cas a De l Senor , Inc . v . L.M. . 78 3 So.2 d 353 , 35 6 (Fla . 2001) .

SOUTHWES T AlKFKAMli AND TANK' S PRE TRIALPOl>jr S AN

D AUTHORITIE S Pag e 2 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , PC an d tfi c La wOffice s o fJaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 WisconsinAvenue , MW , Suit e 50 3 Wa.shineton . D

C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-894 701/08/201 0 1G:3 5 FAX 202493514 2 FA A * DM S Eioos/o n

a . Unde rFlorid a Law , "Scop e o fEmployment " Ha s Thre e Element s Unde rFlorid a law , a n actio n fall s withi n th e scop e o femploymen t i fth e conduct : (1 ) i s o fth e kin d th e employe e wa s employe d t o perfonm ; (2 ) occurre d withi n th e tim e an d spac e limit s o fth e employee' s employment ; an d (3 ) wa s activate d a t leas t i n par t b ya purpos e t o serv e th e employment . Spence rv . Assuranc e Co . o f Am. . 39F.3 d 1146 . 115 0 (11t h Cir . 1994) : Iglesi a Cristiana . 78 3 So.2 d a t 357 . I n orde rt o sho wprevai l a t trial , th e Administrato rmus t prov e eac h o fthes e thre e elements . Southwes t Airfram e an d Tan k onl yneed s t o sho wtha t th e governmen t ha s faile d t o mak e it s cas e o n on e o fth e thre e element s o f"scop e o femployment. " However , i n thi s case , th e governmen t i s a tripl e lose r- th e governmen t canno t suppor t it s cas e o n an yo fth e thre e elements . Th e firs t elemen t t o b e analyze d i s whethe rth e conduc t wa s "o fth e kin d th e employe e wa s employe d t o perform. " Unite d Technologie s Corp . v . Mazer , 55 6 F.3 d 1260 . 127 1 (11 * Cir . 2009) . I n thi s case , Mr . Pyatigorsk ywa s hire d t o *** . Shippin g i s no t withi n hi s jo b description . H e doe s no t hav e genera l authorit yt o shi p articl e o n behal fo fth e company , an d h e di d no t receiv e specifi cauthorit yt o mak e th e shipmen t fro m Tamp a tha t i s a t issu e i n thi s case . Wit h neithe rgenera l no rspecifi cauthority , h e wa s no t authorize d t o mak e a shipment . SOUTHWES T AIRFRAMEAN D TAMK' S PRE TRIALPOINT S AND AUTHORITIE S Pag e 3 Washingto nAviatio nGroup , PC andth e La w Office s o f

Ja-so nA . Dickstein 223 3 Wi.sconsi

nAvenue , NW . Suii e 50 3 Washington , DC 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-894 701/08/201 0 1G:3 5 FAX 202493514 2 FA A + DMS 0004/01 1

I n examinin g whethe rconduc t wa s "o fth e kin d th e employe e wa s employe d t o perform, " th e Florid a Court s hav e hel d tha t th e employer s reasonabl e abilit yt o anticipat e th e employee' s conduc t i s a ke yconsideration . Weis s v . Jacobson , 6 2 So.2 d 904 , 90 6 (Fla . 1953 ) (whethe rth e employee' s ac t wa s somethin g whic h th e employmen t contemplated) . Th e liabilit yo fth e maste rfo rintentiona l act s whic h constitut e lega l wrong s ca n onl yaris e whe n tha t whic h i s don e I s withi n th e rea l o rapparen t scop e o fth e master' s business . I t doe s no t aris e wher e th e servan t ha s steppe d asid e fro m hi s employmen t t o commi t a tort whic h th e maste rneithe r directe d i n fact , no rcoul d b e supposed , fro m th e natur e o fhi s employment , t o hav e authorize d o rexpecte d th e sen/an t t o do . Id . at 906 . Th e secon d elemen t t o b e examine d i n determinin g whethe ra n act falls withi n th e scop e o femploymen t i s t o examin e whethe rth e ac t occurre d withi n th e tim e an d spac e limit s o fth e employee' s employment . Unite d Technologie s Corp . v . Mazer . 55 6 F.3 d 1260 . 127 1 (1V ^ Cir . 2009) . I n thi s case , th e evidenc e wil l sho wtha t Mr . Pyatigorsk yha d alread yleft th e jo b sit e i n hi s ow n ca ran d wa s drivin g hom e whe n h e go t int o a n automobil e accident . Hi s brother-in-la wpicke d hi m up . H e spok e t o hi s bos s abou t rentin g a ca ran d drivin g home . Unde rth e fac t pattern , ther e wa s n o nee d fo rhi m t o shi p anything , an d ther e wa s n o waytha t a reasonabl e employe rcoul d anticipat e tha t h e woul d shi p anythin g t o anywhere . Th e fact s wil l clearl ysho wtha t i t wa s Mr . Pyatigorsk ywh o unilaterall ydecide d t o shi p hi s tool s home . H e di d thi s fo rhi s ow n convenience , whe n th e employe r though t tha t h e woul d b e drivin g th e tool s home . SOUTHWES T AIRFRAM EAND TANK' S PRE TRIALPOINT S AND AUTHORHIE S I*ag e 4 Washingto nAviatio nGroup . P C an dth e I.a w Office s of.ra.5o

nA . Diclc.stei

n 223 3 Wisconsi nAvenue , NW , Suire 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-894 701/08/201 0 1G:3 5 FAX 202483514 2 FA A+ DMS 0005/01 1

Whe n Mr . Pyatigorsk

ychos e t o shi p hi s tool s home , h e ha d alread yleft th e jo b site . H e diverte d fro m hi s expecte d rout e - returnin g hom e - afte rh e ha d a n acciden t i n hi s persona l vehicle . Th e shipmen t a t issu e i n thi s cas e di d no t occu rwithi n th e tim e an d spac e limit s o fMr . Pyatigorsky' s employment . Th e thir d an d fina l elemen t t o b e examine d wa s whethe rth e act wa s motivate d at leas t i n part bya purpos e t o serv e th e employer . Unite d Technolooie s Corp . v . Mazer , 55 6 F.3 d 1260 . 127 1 (11' ^ Cir . 2009) . I n thi s case , Mr . Pyatigorsk ywa s sendin g hi s tool s t o hi s ow n hom e at 111 2 Renaissanc e Way , Boynto n Beach , F L 33426 . Th e tool s wer e no t addresse d t o an ySouthwes t Airfram e an d Tan k facilit yno rt o an ySouthwes t Airfram e an d Tan k jo b site . I t i s clea rtha t Mr . Pyatigorsky' s motivatio n wa s t o ge t hi s tool s hom e - no t t o serv e th e interest s o fhi s employer . Thus , Southwes t Airfram e an d Tan k receive d n o benefi t fro m th e shipmen t o fMr . Pyatigorsky' s tools , an d ther e wa s n o contemplatio n o fdirect benefi t t o Southwes t Airfram e an d Tank . I n additio n t o th e fact tha t al l thre e ofth e element s of"scop e o femployment " sugges t tha t thi s act wa s outsid e th e scop e o femployment , i t i s als o wel l settle d tha t a n employe e i s no t actin g withi n th e scop e ofhi s employmen t i fi t ca n b e foun d tha t th e employe e ha d "steppe d away " fro m o rabandone d th e employer' s busines s at th e tim e th e tort wa s committed . Johnso n v . Gul fLif e Ins. , 42 9 So.2 d 744 , 74 6 (Fla . DCA1983 ) (relyin g o n Miam i v . Simpson . 17 2 So.2 d 43 5 (Fla . 1965 ) an d Weis s v . Jacobson , 6 2 So.2 d 90 4 (Fla . 1953)) . Mr . Pyatigorsk y wa s o n hi s waybac k

hom e - hi s employe rha d advise d hi m o n a metho d t o ge t hom e an d h e chos e anothe rmethod . Afte rMr . Pyatigorsk ychos e t o tak e a rout e hom e tha t wa s explicitl ycontrar yt o tha t recommende d byhi s employer , h e the n embarke d upo n th e cours e o factio n tha t le d hi m t o mak e th e shipmen t a t issu e SOUT I IWl-: s | - AIRIRAMI i AN D TANK' S PRE - Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an d th e TRIA L POINT S AN D AUTHORITIE S La wOffice s o fJa-son A . Dicksici n Pag e 5 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suii e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 -Te L 202-628-894 701/08/201 0 1G:3 G FA X 202483514 2 FA A* DM S 0008/01 1

i n thi s case . Clearly , h e ha d steppe d awayfro m hi s employer' s busines s durin g hi s tri p home , i n ligh t o fth e fac t tha t h e mad e commutin g choice s contrar yt o th e employer' s instructions . Fo reac h o fth e thre e reason s described , th e act at issu e i n thi s cas e - th e shippin g o fth e tool s - di d not fal l withi n th e scop e o femployment .

b . Th e Shipmen t Di d Furthe ra Purpos e o rInteres t o fth e Employe r I n thi s case , Mr . Pyatigorsk ywa s sendin g hi s tool s t o hi s ow n hom e at 111 2 Renaissanc e Way , Boynto n Beach , F L 33426 . Th e tool s wer e no t addresse d t o an ySouthwes t Airfram e an d Tan k facilit yno rt o an ySouthwes t Airfram e an d Tan k jo b site . A s discusse d previously , Mr . Pyatigorsky' s action s sugges t tha t th e sol e motivatio n fo rth e shipmen t wa s t o facilitat e Mr . Pyatigorsky' s retur n home . I n addition , though , Southwes t Airfram e an d Tan k receive d n o benefi t fro m th e shipmen t o fMr . Pyatigorsky' s tools , an d ther e wa s n o contemplatio n o fdirect benefi t t o Southwes t Airfram e an d Tank . N o interes t o fSouthwes t Airfram e an d Tan k wa s furthere d byshippin g th e tool s t o Mr . Pyatigorsky' s home . Eve n i fon e wer e t o argu e tha t Southwes t Airfram e an d Tan k indirectl ybenefit s fro m th e preservatio n ofth e tools , suc h a claime d benefi t i s insufl^icien t t o trul y serv e th e employer' s interest s becaus e th e tool s wer e shippe d t o Mr . Pyatigorsky' s hom e an d not t o th e nex t Southwes t Airfram e an d Tan k jo b site. I f an yactio n tha t serve s i n a chai n ofactivitie s designe d t o mak e Mr . Pyatigorsk y read yt o wor k

i n th e futur e ca n b e construe d t o "furthe ra purpos e o rinteres t o f th e employer, " the n thi s woul d b e tantamoun t t o a findin g tha t an yactio n o fMr . Pyatigorsk

ytha t wa s i n hi s persona l interes t wil l furthe rth e interest s o f SOUTHWES T AIRIRAM EAND TANK' S PRE - Washingto nAviatio nGroup , P C andthe TRTAT , P0I>JT S AN

D AUTHORIIIL S La w Office s o f

Jaso nA . Dicksici n Pag e 6 223 3 Wiscon.si nAvenue , NW , Suit

e 50 3 Washington , DC 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-894 701/08/201 0 1G;3 G FAX 202483514 2 FA A* DMS 0007/01 1

Southwes t Airfram e an d Tank . Suc h a n interpretatio n woul d b e at odd s wit h th e traditiona l interpretatio n o frespondea t superior , whic h hold s tha t a n act i n furtheranc e ofth e employer' s persona l interest s i s a divergenc e fro m th e purpose s o fth e employer , sufficien t t o negat e respondea t superio rSee , e.g. . Foremos t Dairie s o fth e Sout h v . Godwin . 15 8 Fla . 24 5 (Fla . 1946 ) (findin g tha t th e employe rwa s no t liabl e fo rth e employee' s drivin g tort whil e th e employe e wa s drivin g t o work , becaus e th e employe e wa s no t ye t directl yservin g th e employer' s interest s - thi s i s analogou s t o th e cas e a t bar , i n whic h Mr . Pyatigorsk

yha d alread yfinishe d hi s wor k an d ha d left th e jo b sit e t o retur n home) . 3 . M rPyatigorsky' s Act s Ar e Subjec t t o th e "Goin g an d Coming " Rul e Mr . Pyatigorsky' s act s fal l ar e subject t o th e "goin g an d comin g rule. " I n Florida , th e "goin g an d comin g rule " generall yhold s tha t a n employe e i s no t withi n th e scop e o fhi s employmen t o n hi s wayt o o rfro m work , an d thu s th e employe ri s not liabl e fo rth e employee s action s durin g thes e time s Foremos t Dairie s o fth e Sout h v . Godwin , 15 8 Fla . 245 , 24 7 (Fla . 1946) . A s a matte ro fpolicy , th e reaso n fo rth e "goin g an d comin g rule " i s tha t th e employe e ha s th e powe rt o select th e metho d o fcommuting , no t th e employer . Siostro m v . Sproule . 21 0 N.E.2 d 209 , 21 1 (111.1965) . Th e Florid a court s hav e decline d t o fin d respondea t superio rliabilitywhe n a n employe e wa s goin g t o o rcomin g fro m wor k eve n whe n th e employe rpai d fo r th e licenses , repairs , tires , an d fue l o fa ca rowne d byth e employe e an d use d fo r th e busines s o fcollectio n o fth e employers ' bill s an d accounts , o rwhe n th e employe e wa s a polic e office roperatin g a cityprovide d "take-home " vehicl e an d wa s require d t o b e arme d an d i n unifor m whil e operatin g sai d vehicle , o rwhe n SOUTHWES T AIRFRAMEAN D TANK' S PRE - Washingto nAviatio nGroup , P C andthe TRIALPOI

NI S AND AUTHORITIE S La w Office s o f

.Jaso nA . Dickstei n Pag e 7 223 3 WisconsinAvenue , NW . Suite 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 .Tel : 202-628-894 701/08/201 0 1G:3 G FAX 202483514 2 FA A + DMS 2)008/01 1

th e employe e worke d fo ra tem p agencyan d wa s reportin g t o a ne wjo b site , despit e th e employee' s unfamiliarit ywit h th e sit e Garci a v . Citvo fHollywood . 96 6 So . 2 d 5 (District Cour t o fAppeal s 4^

^ Circui t 2007) ; Freema n v . Manpower . Inc. , 45 3 So.2 d 208 , 21 0 (Fla.App. 1 Dis t 1984) ; Foremos t Dairie s o fth e Sout h v . Godwin , 15 8 Fla . 245 , 24 7 (Fla . 1946) . I n th e cas e at hand , Mr . Pyatigorsk ywa s expecte d t o driv e hi s ow n vehicl e containin g hi s toolbo xt o hi s home . Southwes t Airfram e an d Tan k di d no t ow n th e vehicl e Mr . Pyatigorsk

ywa s t o drive , no rdi d the ypayfo rrepairs o n it . I t wa s a n expectatio n o fMr . Pyatigorsky' s jo b tha t h e woul d driv e t o jo b sites , an d also , lik e mos t employees , t o commut e hom e agai n at th e conclusio n o fth e job . Whe n Mr . Pyatigorsk

ywrecke d hi s car , Mr . Stewar t discusse d wit h hi m rentin g a ca rt o ge t home . Thi s telephon e conversatio n wa s witnesse d byJoe l Ramirez . Despit e thi s conversatio n wit h Mr , Stewart , Mr . Pyatigorsk ytoo k i t upo n himsel f t o cal l Ms . Gensle ran d t o obtai n a n unauthorize d plan e ticke t fro m her , i n violatio n ofth e understandin g o fSouthwes t Airfram e an d Tan k management . Whil e Ms . Gensle rmayhav e arrange d fo rMr . Pyatigorsky' s plan e ticket , sh e di d no t arrang e fo rth e shipmen t o fMr . Pyatigorsky' s toolbox , no rdi d Mr . Pyatigorsk y infor m Ms . Gensle rtha t h e neede d hi s tool s sen t t o hi s hom e (no reve n tha t h e ha d tool s wit h him) . Rather , Mr . Pyatigorsk yunilaterall ydecide d tha t h e was goin g t o shi p th e too l boxt o hi s home . Southwes t Airfram e an d Tan k di d not dictat e th e metho d bywhic h Mr . Pyatigorsk

ycommute d home . I n fact , the yattempte d t o d o s o an d Mr . Pyatigorsk

ychos e t o g o hom e anothe rway . Becaus e Southwes t Airfram e an d Tan k di d not (an d coul d not ) contro l th e manne ri n whic h Mr . Pyatigorsk y returne d home , th e retur n hom e wa s subjec t t o th e sam e leve l o femploye r

.so u FHWES T AIRF

RAM LAND TANK' S PRE TRIALPOINT S A"N

D AUTHORl 1 It s Page s Washingto nAviatio nGroup , P C an dtli e La w OITices of

Jaso nA . DJckstoin 223 3 WisconsinAvenue , NW, Suite 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-894 701/08/201 0 1G:3 G FAX 202483514 2 FA A * DMS 0009/01 1

contro l normall yexercise d i n commutin g decisions , an d th e "going-and-coming " rul e mus t therefor e appl yt o thi s travel . I fth e "going-and-coming " rul e applie s t o thi s travel , the n act s incidenta l t o th e travel , lik e Mr . Pyatigosky' s ac t o fshippin g hi s tool s t o hi s home , mus t als o fal l outsid e th e scop e o frespondea t superio rur\6e rFlorid a law . Conclusio n I n orde rt o prevai l at trial , th e FA AAdministrato rmus t prov e tha t Southwes t Airfram e an d Tan k

i s liabl e fo rth e allege d shippin g act s o fAle xPyatigorsk y throug h th e doctrin e o frespondea t superio r Mr . Pyatigorsk

yi s no t employe d t o shi p good s an d h e ha d neithe rgenera l no r specifi cauthorit yt o make th e shipmen t i n questio n i n thi s case . Th e shipmen t occurre d afte rMr . Pyatigorsk yha d left th e jo b sit e s o i t wa s no t withi n th e tim e an d spac e limit s o femployment . I t wa s motivate d b ya desir e t o retur n th e tool s t o Mr . Pyatigorsky' s persona l home , an d no t fo ran ypurpos e tha t materiall y serve d Southwes t Airfram e an d Tank . Fo ran yon e ofthes e reasons , th e Cour t mayfin d tha t Mr . Pyatigorsky' s shipmen t wa s no t withi n th e scop e o fhi s employmen t at Southwes t Airfram e an d Tank . I n addition , th e going-and-comin g rul e (a s wel l a s th e polic yunderlyin g tha t rule ) dictate s tha t unde rFlorid a law , th e employe ri s no t vicariousl yliabl e fo rsid e activitie s (like shipping ) tha t occu rdurin g th e commut e home . Fo ral l o fthes e reasons , th e Court shoul d fin d tha t Southwes t Airfram e an d Tan k i s not responsibl e unde rrespondea t superio rfo rth e shipmen t sen t byAle x Pyatigorsk

yt o hi s ow n home . SOUT I IWK S I AIRIRAM EAND TANK' S PRE TRIALPOINT S AND AUTHORlTlL S Pase Q Washingto nAviatio nGroup , P C an dthe La w Office s o f

.Jaso nA . Dickstei n 223 3 WisconsinAvenue , NW, Suii e 50 3 Wa-ihington , DC 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-894 701/08/201 0 16:3 8 FA X 202483514 2 FA A * DM S g|010/01 1

RESPECTFULL YSUBMITTE D thi s 6" ^ da yo fJanuary , 2010 . WASHINGTO N AVIATIO N GROUP , P C AN D TH E LA WOFFICE S O F JASO N ADICKSTEI N

Jaso n Dickstei n Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an d th e LawOffice s ofJaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3

Washington , D C 2000 7 

### Tel : (202 ) 628-677 6 Fax : (202 ) 628-894 8 Attorne yfo rResponden t

SOUTHWES T AlRFRAMl i AND TANK' S PRL TRIALPOIMT S AND AUTHORITIE S Pag e 1 0 Wa.shingtonAviatio nGroup , P C an dthe La wOffice s o fJaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue . NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 'Tel : 202-6:>.8-894 701/08/201 0 1G:3 G FA X 202483514 2 FA A + DM S 1011/01 1

CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E RE : I n th e Matte ro f Southwes t Airfram e an d Tan k Service s (FAADocke t No. : CPSOOOl0 , DM S No . FAA-2009-0723) . Th e undersigne d hereb ycertifie s tha t sh e cause d th e attache d

•Pre-Tria l Point s an d Authoritie s (Respondea t Superior) t o b e filed , a t th e followin g locations , byFedE xovernigh t service,-o n th e dat e indicate d below : Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (Origina l an d On e Copy ) 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , SW . Wilbu rWrigh t Building—Suit e 2W100 0 Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Tel : (202 ) 385-822 9 An d tha t sh e cause d i t t o b e serve d a t th e followin g locations , b yFedE xovernigh t sen/ice : Th e Honorabl e Isaa cD . Benki n Administrativ e LawJudg e Offic e o fHearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t o fTransportatio n 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue , S E East BId g Groun d Floor , Roo m E12-32 0 Washington . D C 2059 0 FAX : (202 ) 366-753 6 Geral d Ellis , Attorne y Offic e o fth e Regiona l Counse l Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 170 1 Columbi a Ave . Colleg e Park , G A3033 7 TEL : (404 ) 305-520 0 FAX : (404 ) 305-522 3 

## 0 ^ :)k^\)k^' { 201 0 Dat e SOUTHWES T AIRlKAMi : AN D TAN K CERriFlCAT EOFSERVIC E Washingto n Aviaiio n Group , P C an d th e LawOffice s o f Ja-son A . Dick!;l.ci n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , O

C 2000 7 ciTel- , 202-628-894 7