In The Matter Of: 

### SERVED: May 15, 2015 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON DC '

DocketNo. FAA-2015-0205 JAMES JUAQUIN JORDAN ) ) ) ) ) Respondent Case No. 2014SW700104

ORDERFINDING GOOD CAUSE,ACCEPTING ANSWER, AND GRANTING/DENYING OTHER RELIEF
On April 15, 2015, an Order Setting Deadline for the Respondentto Show Cause and to File an Answer, and Reserving OtherReliefwas filed. Among otherthings, this April 15, 2015 Order set an April30, 2015 deadline for theprose 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 Answerto 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 Answerto the FAA's Complaint. Mr. Jordan's April29, 2015 Letter also included an Answerto the FAA's Complaint.
BriefDiscussion This Order addresses only the issue ofwhether the untimely Answercontained in Mr. Jordan's April29, 2015 Letter shouldbe accepted. A separate Orderwill be filed regardingthe 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 canresult in a default finding orjudgmentagainstthe non-responding party.Atthe most, a responding party has 35 days to file a timely answer after service ofa Complaint. 1Ifan answer is filed beyondthe 35 day period, the respondingparty who has filed a late answer to a Complaintmay petition for relieffrom a default action. Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.209(£), In support ofits request for relieffrom a default action, the responding party must demonstrate good cause grounds. "A showing ofgood cause is mandatory. Without it failure to file an answerbythe deadline may notbe excused."'In re GlobalPeace Initiative, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-8 at 6 (Aug. 21, 2008) (quotingIn reAtlantic WorldAirways, FAA OrderNo. 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 assertedthathe had already "filedresponses to the complaintin November 2014 (seekingreliefin the form ofa lowerpenalty)." (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. Ifhe 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. 21A Karl Oakes, 

### Fed. Proc. L. Ed. §51 :64 (2014). Therefore, in determining whether good cause exists ordoes not exist, the court may considerthe nature ofthe default, whether there is a meritorious defense, whetherthe opposing party will be prejudiced, the timeliness ofthe request for relief, the amount involved in the litigation, as well as the availability and effectiveness ofless drastic solutions.

### 29 A.L.R. Fed. 7, GoodCause General Considerations, §4 (1976). Other considerations in evaluating good cause (not inclusive) may include the inaction ofa party's counsel, a party's mistaken beliefabout the time requirements, the willfulness ofthe party's non-compliance, any

1 Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(a), a respondent is allowed 30 days after service ofthe 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. Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. § l3.212(b), the date ofservice is not included in the calculation oftime. Page 2 of7factors demonstrating excusable neglect, surprise, or inadvertence, or a party's erroneous reliance on settlement negotiations. 29 A.L.R. Fed. 7,**s~!!Jiciency** of ParticularReasons.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). Itis an evaluationthatrests withinthe discretion ofthe 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 DavidLloydCornwall, FAA OrderNo. 92-47 at 7 (July 22, 1992) (Whereverpossible, cases should be heard "onthe merits").
Based on ajointreading ofthe FAA's February 17, 2015 Complaint and Mr. Jordan's

.April29, 2015 Letter, it appears that last year, on September4, 2014, the FAA served Mr. Jordan with a Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty (NPCP). Shortlythereafter, in November2014 (date unspecified), Mr. Jordan and the FAA informally discussed trying to agreeably resolvethe 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 ofProposed 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- aprose litigant- mistakenly believedthat he had already answered the Complaint, because he had providedhis "responses"to the FAA in November 2014. (4/29/15 Letter, 1.) Mr. Jordan also mistakenly believes that this Comiis part ofthe FAA, and that his Request was added to information already acquired by the Court. Mr. Jordan's assumptions, as apro se litigant, are understandable, but they are notcorrect. This Court is an independenttribunal. 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 ofMr. Jordan's Request in February 2015, the FAA promptly referred Mr. Jordan's Request, along with aJour-page Complaint, to the Office ofHearings ("OH"). Although the OH is part ofthe U.S. Department ofTransportation ("DOT"), it is not a pmi ofthe FAA. Instead, it is part ofthe 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 of7the FAA's records. The only records before the Court are those thatthe parties have filed with the OH (and the FAA Hearing Docket), once a respondent requests a hearing, and the FAA refers the caseto the 0 H for a hearing. It should also be notedthatHearings conducted by the OHare adversarial, presided over by U.S. Administrative LawJudges, and are governed by specific rules ofpractice. 14 C.F.R. Ch. I, Subpart G. Among otherthings, these rules ofpractice require the FAAto file a formal Complaint after receipt ofa respondent's Request. 14 C.F.R. § 13.208. Therules also require a respondentto file a timely written Answerto the Complaint, 

### after the Complaint has been served. 14 C.F.R. 

### §13.209. Oncethe respondent had filed an Answerto the Complaint, the parties then typically engage in specific documentary exchange, which will help the parties prepare for the Court Hearing. Asthe FAAnotedin 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 thatthe 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, 2014Notice ofProposed Civil'Penalty ("NPCP") approximately eight (8) months ago. He responded to the NPCP by providingthe FAA with additional written information. He responded to the FAA's December 30, 2014 Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty ("FNPCP") by filing a Request. He also respondedpromptly 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 Answerto the violation alleged in paragraph I ofthe FAA's February 17, 2015 Complaint. This means he had admitted to the alleged safety violation, and seeks only a hearing
on whether or notthe FAA'sproposed 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 ofthe rules, or a lack ofattention to the proceedings, but ratherthe result ofa mistaken assumption about the procedures to follow. Given the admissions in his April 29, 2015 Answer, Mr. Jordan has also agreedto limit the controversy to the proposed penalty. Taking all facts into account, there appears to be little (ifany) prejudice to the FAAto require it to litigate Page 4 of7this matter, particularly given the narrow scope ofthe issue and the short length oftime (i.e., 35 days) between when Mr. Jordan should have filed his Answer (i.e., on orbefore March 24, 2015) and when he actually filed it (i.e., April 29, 2015).

In this case, the majority offactors 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 JuaquinJordan, has shown good cause for why he did not file a timely Answerto the Complainton orbefore 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 Orderwill issue regarding that request for relief, and the admissions contained in Mr. Jordan's April 29, 2015 Letter. 4. Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. 

### §§ 13.209(b), 13.210, and 13.211, the Respondent shall mail orfax the original and one copy ofthe written Response and Answer, as well as any future documents, to the FAA Hearing Docket, and mail or fax a copy ofthe Response and Answer on the undersigned administrative Judge and to the FAA attorney, at the addresses appearing on the attached Certificate ofService. 5. Pursuantto 14 C.F

### .R.. §13.211(c), the Respondent shall include a Certificate ofService with his Response and Answer, and with any future documents thatthe Respondent files in this litigation. A sample Certificate ofService is attached to this Order, and the names/addresses/fax numbers ofthe administrative Judge and all parties are included.

Page 5 of76. Ifeitherpmiy needs clarification or has any questions regarding the procedures contained 

### in: this Order, contact Mr. Cody L. Smith, Attorney-Advisor at the Office ofHearings (202-366- 6941).

Attachment: Service List

Page 6 of7SERVICE 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-Suite2W10002



### Ms. Rebecca Holmes Complainant's Counsel 

## .. '.

. \ 

### Federal AviationAdministration · 1 • · 

### Office oftheRegional 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 ParkLane Johns Creek, GA 30097 Judge J.E. Sullivan U.S. Adm-inistrative LawJudge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 'I''



### U.S. DepartmentofTransportation 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 2059l; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. · Page 7 of7