In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: May 15, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON DC ' 

Docket No. FAA-2015-0205 

JAMES JUAQUIN JORDAN 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Respondent ) 

Case No. 2014SW700104 

ORDER FINDING GOOD CAUSE, ACCEPTING ANSWER, 

AND GRANTING/DENYING OTHER RELIEF 

On April 15, 2015, an Order Setting Deadline for the Respondent to Show Cause and to 

File an Answer, and Reserving Other Relief was filed. Among other things, this April 15, 2015 

Order set an April30, 2015 deadline for the prose Respondent, Mr. James Juaquin Jordan, to 

file a written Response to the FAA's April 1, 2015 Motion for Decision ("Motion"), as well as to 

file a written Answer to the FAA's February 17,2015 Complaint. 

On April29, 2015 Mr. Jordan filed a one-page Letter, in which he presented reasons why 

he had not filed awritten Response to the FAA's Motion or a written Answer to the FAA's 

Complaint. Mr. Jordan's April29, 2015 Letter also included an Answer to the FAA's Complaint. 

Brief Discussion 

This Order addresses only the issue of whether the untimely Answer contained in Mr. 

Jordan's April29, 2015 Letter should be accepted. A separate Order will be filed regarding the 

admissions contained in Mr. Jordan's April29, 2015 Letter and the Court's ruling on the FAA's 

Motion. 

In essence, a failure to file a timely answer to an FAA Complaint can result in a default 

finding or judgment against the non-responding party. 
At the most, a responding party has 35 days to file a timely answer after service of a 

Complaint. 1 If an answer is filed beyond the 35 day period, the responding party who has filed a 

late answer to a Complaint may petition for relief from a default action. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 

13 .209(£), In support of its request for relief from a default action, the responding party must 

demonstrate good cause grounds. "A showing of good cause is mandatory. Without it failure to 

file an answer by the deadline may not be excused."' In re Global Peace Initiative, Inc., FAA 

Order No. 2008-8 at 6 (Aug. 21, 2008) (quoting In re Atlantic World Airways, FAA Order No. 

1995-28 at 4 (Dec. 19, 1995 

In his April 29, 2015 Letter, Mr. Jordan explained that he had not intentionally violated 

the procedural rules. Mr. Jordan asserted that he had already "filed responses to the complaint in 

November 2014 (seeking relief in the form of a lower penalty)." (4/29/15 Letter, 1.) Three 

months later, in February 2015, he filed his Request for Hearing. Since February 2015 Mr. 

Jordan has been waiting to receive detailed information about the hearing. When he received the 

April 15, 2015 Order, he timely responded to it. 

The question presented is whether, in this particular case, Mr. Jordan has presented good 

cause for his failure to file a timely Answer to the FAA's February 17, 2015 Complaint. If he has 

not shown good cause, then each allegation contained in the complaint "shall be deemed an 

admission." 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(£). 

In evaluating good cause, there is "no fixed, rigid standard" that can anticipate "all the 

situations" which might arise for a party's failure to file a timely answer. 21 A Karl Oakes, Fed. 

Proc. L. Ed. §51 :64 (2014). Therefore, in determining whether good cause exists or does not 

exist, the court may consider the nature of the default, whether there is a meritorious defense, 

whether the opposing party will be prejudiced, the timeliness of the request for relief, the amount 

involved in the litigation, as well as the availability and effectiveness of less drastic solutions. 29 

A.L.R. Fed. 7, Good Cause General Considerations, §4 (1976). Other considerations in 

evaluating good cause (not inclusive) may include the inaction of a party's counsel, a party's 

mistaken belief about the time requirements, the willfulness of the party's non-compliance, any 

1 Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(a), a respondent is allowed 30 days after service of the complaint to file a written 

answer to the complaint. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.211 (e), five additional days are added to the 30 day time period 

whenever a complaint is served by mail. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § l3.212(b), the date of service is not included in the 

calculation of time. 

Page 2 of 7 
factors demonstrating excusable neglect, surprise, or inadvertence, or a party's erroneous 

reliance on settlement negotiations. 29 A.L.R. Fed. 7, s~!!Jiciency of Particular Reasons .for 

Inaction,§§ A and B (1976), See also, Edes v. Fredson, 344 F. Supp. 2d 209 (D. Me. 2004). 

Good cause is a "nebulous" standard. 21A Fed. Proc. L.Ed. §51 :64 (2014). It is an 

evaluation that rests within the discretion of the trial court, since there is a preference for 

deciding cases on their merits. 1 OA Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Prac. & 

Proc. Civ. §2693 (3d ed. 2014 ); See, e.g., In re David Lloyd Cornwall, FAA Order No. 92-4 7 at 

7 (July 22, 1992) (Wherever possible, cases should be heard "on the merits"). 

Based on a joint reading of the FAA's February 17, 2015 Complaint and Mr. Jordan's 

. April29, 2015 Letter, it appears that last year, on September 4, 2014, the FAA served Mr. Jordan 

with a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty (NPCP). Shortly thereafter, in November 2014 (date 

unspecified), Mr. Jordan and the FAA informally discussed trying to agreeably resolve the 

NPCP's allegations and proposed civil penalty. Those informal discussions were not successful, 

since shortly thereafter, on December 30,2014, the FAA issued a Final Notice of Proposed Civil 

Penalty ("FNPCP"). (Complaint, 1.) In response to the FNPCP, on February 12,2015, Mr. 

Jordan served the FAA with a Request for Hearing. 

In this case, Mr. Jordan- a prose litigant- mistakenly believed that he had already 

answered the Complaint, because he had provided his "responses" to the FAA in November 

2014. (4/29/15 Letter, 1.) Mr. Jordan also mistakenly believes that this Comi is part ofthe 

FAA, and that his Request was added to information already acquired by the Court. Mr. 

Jordan's assumptions, as a pro se litigant, are understandable, but they are not correct. 

This Court is an independent tribunal. When Mr. Jordan filed a Request for Hearing 

("Request") with the FAA in February 2015, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §13.6, he was asking for an 

independent adjudication ofthe FAA's allegation that Mr. Jordan committed a violation ofthe 

federal aviation safety regulations. Thus, upon receipt of Mr. Jordan's Request in February 2015, 

the FAA promptly referred Mr. Jordan's Request, along with a Jour-page Complaint, to the 

Office of Hearings ("OH"). Although the OH is part ofthe U.S. Department ofTransportation 

("DOT"), it is not a pmi ofthe FAA. Instead, it is part of the U.S. DOT's Office ofthe 

Secretary. As a result, the OH is independent from the FAA. This Court does not have access to 

Page 3 of 7 
the FAA's records. The only records before the Court are those that the parties have filed with 

the OH (and the FAA Hearing Docket), once a respondent requests a hearing, and the FAA refers 

the case to the 0 H for a hearing. 

It should also be noted that Hearings conducted by the OHare adversarial, presided over 

by U.S. Administrative Law Judges, and are governed by specific rules of practice. 14 C.F.R. 

Ch. I, Subpart G. Among other things, these rules of practice require the FAA to file a formal 

Complaint after receipt of a respondent's Request. 14 C.F.R. § 13.208. The rules also require a 

respondent to file a timely written Answer to the Complaint, after the Complaint has been 

served. 14 C.F.R. § 13.209. Once the respondent had filed an Answer to the Complaint, the 

parties then typically engage in specific documentary exchange, which will help the parties 

prepare for the Court Hearing. 

As the FAA noted in its April 1, 2015 Motion, Mr. Jordan should have filed a timely 

Answer on or before March 24, 2015. He did not. It is undisputed that the Answer Mr. Jordan 

did file, on April 29, 2015, is 35 days late. Nevertheless, Mr. Jordan has shown that he cares 

about this matter, and has tried to be active and responsible since receiving the FAA's September 

4, 2014 Notice of Proposed Civil 'Penalty ("NPCP") approximately eight (8) months ago. He 

responded to the NPCP by providing the FAA with additional written information. He 

responded to the FAA's December 30, 2014 Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty ("FNPCP") 

by filing a Request. He also responded promptly and timely when this Court gave him a 

deadline to submit good cause materials and an answer. In addition, Mr. Jordan admitted in his 

April 29, 2015 Answer to the violation alleged in paragraph I of the FAA's February 17, 2015 

Complaint. This means he had admitted to the alleged safety violation, and seeks only a hearing 

on whether or not the FAA's proposed civil penalty is appropriate. 

The FAA has proposed a civil penalty of $1,000, which is a substantial amount for most 

individuals to pay. Mr. Jordan has demonstrated that his failure to file a timely Answer was not 

a willful disregard of the rules, or a lack of attention to the proceedings, but rather the result of a 

mistaken assumption about the procedures to follow. Given the admissions in his April 2 9, 2015 

Answer, Mr. Jordan has also agreed to limit the controversy to the proposed penalty. Taking all 

facts into account, there appears to be little (if any) prejudice to the FAA to require it to litigate 

Page 4 of 7 
this matter, particularly given the narrow scope of the issue and the short length of time (i.e., 35 

days) between when Mr. Jordan should have filed his Answer (i.e., on or before March 24, 2015) 

and when he actually filed it (i.e., April 29, 201 5). 

In this case, the majority of factors support finding good cause for Mr. Jordan's untimely 

Answer, accepting the Answer, and allowing Mr. Jordan his day in court. 

Conclusion 

Having reviewing all pleadings and documents, as well as all relevant caselaw, decisions, 

regulation, statutory authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The prose Respondent, Mr. James Juaquin Jordan, has shown good cause for why he did not 

file a timely Answer to the Complaint on or before March 24, 2015. 

2. Mr. Jordan's written Answer, contained within his April29, 2015 Letter, is untimely but is 

accepted. 

3. The FAA's April 1, 2015 Motion for Decision is reserved. A separate Order will issue 

regarding that request for relief, and the admissions contained in Mr. Jordan's April 29, 2015 

Letter. 

4. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.209(b), 13.210, and 13.211, the Respondent shall mail or fax the 

original and one copy of the written Response and Answer, as well as any future documents, 

to the FAA Hearing Docket, and mail or fax a copy of the Response and Answer on the 

undersigned administrative Judge and to the FAA attorney, at the addresses appearing on the 

attached Certificate of Service. 

5. Pursuant to 14 C.F .R.. § 13.211 (c), the Respondent shall include a Certificate of Service with 

his Response and Answer, and with any future documents that the Respondent files in this 

litigation. A sample Certificate of Service is attached to this Order, and the 

names/addresses/fax numbers ofthe administrative Judge and all parties are included. 

Page 5 of 7 
6. If either pmiy needs clarification or has any questions regarding the procedures contained in: 

this Order, contact Mr. Cody L. Smith, Attorney-Advisor at the Office of Hearings (202-366-

6941 ). 

Attachment: Service List 

Page 6 of 7 
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 2W 10002 

Ms. Rebecca Holmes 

Complainant's Counsel 

.. 

'. 

. \ 

Federal Aviation Administration · 1 • · 

Office ofthe Regional Counsel (ASW-7) 

2601 Meacham Blvd. 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

TEL: 817-222-5064 

FAX: 817-222-5945/5092 

Mr. James Juaquin Jordan 

Respondent 

11980 Carriage Park Lane 

Johns Creek, GA 30097 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Adm-inistrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

'I'' 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

ONE COPY 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2015-0205 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

2 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 2WJOOO, Washington, 

DC 2059 l; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. · 

Page 7 of 7