# RECEI\/ED APR I 92016 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC 

## HEARING DOCKET

IN THE MATTER OF: Docket No. FAA-2016-4261 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC
.. FAA Case No. 2013S0700189 Respondent Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan

Complainant's Response to Order Granting the Respondent's Motion for Extension ofTime, and Directing/Reserving Other Relief
Pursuant to Section 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(d), Complainant, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby files this Joint Response to Respondent's Motion to Consolidate Proceedings and Request for Alternate Hearing Venue, served on April 1, 2016, and the Court's Order served AprilS, 2016. In support ofthis response, Complainant offers the following: I. Consolidation Complainant opposes the Motionto Consolidate at this time, as it is premature to consider such a motion. Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure Rule 42 allows for the court to consolidate cases that have "common questions oflaw or fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). While there are some issues in this matter that are commonwith the other two complaints, this is notunusual. However, the facts in each ofthe three complaints involve different incidents on different dates, with shipments that originated from different locations involving different hazardous materials. In the present case, the shipment in question originated in Cortland, IL and contained four !-gallonmetal2 containers ofGAM Vehicle Care Black Reconditioning Paint. The shipment was discovered leaking at a UPS sort facility by UPS personal, and upon investigationthe box
was found to have been marked Consumer Commodity ORM-D. These facts are specific to this case, and the complaints are only related in that they assert UPS, Inc. violated the Hazardous Material Regulations in each case. Without an Answer, Complainant is unable to knowwhat "related" issues actually exist and ifconsolidation is reasonable. Additionally, consolidationwill notremove the obligation that UPS, Inc. has to respond to the allegations found in each ofthe complaints. Therefore, Complainant asks the court to deny the Motion to Consolidate. II. Venue Complainant consents to Respondent's request for venue 

### in Louisville, Kentucky. III. Proper Party The proper Respondent inthis matter is United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS Ground). Complainant is neither claiming violations by, nor seeking a civil penalty from, United Parcel Service Co. (UPS Airlines). To the extentthatUnited Parcel Service Co. (UPS Airlines) is inadvertently a party to this matter, Complainant moves that United Parcel Service Co. (UPS Airlines) be dismissed. Respectfully submittedthis



## ~~~ay ofApril, 2016.

James H. Dunfee, Jr. Attorney SouthernTeam Enforcement Division (AGC-300)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certifythatthe foregoing has beenmailedthis date byFederal Express to: Federal Aviation Administration (original+ 1copy in each case) 600 Independence A venue, SW Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 Administrative LawJudge J. E. Sullivan Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 MeaghanGoodwinBoyd meaghan.boyd@alston.com Alston & Bird LLP 1201 W. Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3424 FROST BROWNTODD LLC WinstonE. Miller wrniller@fbtlaw.com MilesR. Harrison mharrison@fblaw.com 400 W. Market Street, 32ndFl. Louisville, KY 40202 Paul Alp Crowell & MoringLLP 100I PennsylvaniaAve., NW Washington DC 20004-2595



## APR 1 8 2016 Dated 3