In The Matter Of: 

### SERVED: December 1, 2015


## U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASIDNGTON, DC

DocketNo. FAA-2015-1323 REAGECON DIAGNOSTICS LTD. ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2013S0700292 Respondent



### ORDERDISMISSING PROCEEDING 

# -.**-~**

On August 27, 2015, an Order Setting a Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, and Directing the Parties to Confer and File a Rule 26(f) Proposed Discovery Plan was filed.

OnNovember 30,2015 the FAA filed a Motion to Dismiss Request for Hearing and Motion to Suspend Rule 16 Conference ("Motion to Dismiss").
BriefDiscussion ·
Attached to the FAA'sNovember 30,2015 Motionto Dismiss was a Settlement Agreement, executed by the parties in July 2015 (Attachment A), inwhich the

### prose Respondent, Reagecon Diagnostics Ltd., agreed to fully resolve the matter herein by accepting responsibility for the alleged charges inthe FAA'sJune 23, 2015 Complaint and paying a civil penalty inthe amount of$8,000. The FAA's Motion to Dismiss also included a September 22, 2015 Order Assessing Civil Penalty ("Assessment Order")(Attachment B), inwhich the FAA reiterated that the parties had reached a settlement, and that the Assessment Order was being issued per the "terms and conditions ofthe settlement reached bythe parties." (Assmt. Order, 1.) The Assessment Order also acknowledged that the Respondent hadpaid the $8,000 penalty amount, and thatthe "matter is now closed."

Inthe FAA's Motion to Dismiss, it points to a term in the Settlement Agreement, in which the

### prose Respondent agreed to "withdraw its request for hearing" within ten (10) business days ofreceipt ofthe Assessment Order. (Att. A 

### 1,,3). The FAA also asserts that theRespondent was served a copy ofthe Assessment Order on October 2, 2015, and in support of this assertion, provided a copy ofthe USPS Tracking Information. (Att. C.)

Based onthe record herein, it appears clearthatthe

### pro se Respondent did not file any withdrawal ofits request for hearing, pursuant to the parties' settlementterms. While thisCourt understands the frustration ofthe FAA, which was expecting the Respondent to comply withthis particular settlement term, this Court does not havejurisdiction to oversee compliance of privately negotiated settlement terms. The Court would note however, that the terms ofthe Settlement Agreement did not preclude the FAA from simply filing a withdrawal ofits complaint, after it became clear that the

### pro se Respondent was not following through with its agreed obligation. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, the FAA may withdraw its Complaint, orthe Respondent may withdraw its Request for Hearing "at any time before or during a hearing

...withoutthe consent" ofthe Court. 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.215. A withdrawal request from the FAA would not have changed the primary terms ofthe parties' negotiated Settlement Agreement orthe finality ofthe Assessment Order.

In the case herein, the FAA appears to have made its Motion under 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(f)(2), which allows for a Motionto Dismiss to be made on any specified grounds. Under

a strict application ofthe Rules ofPractice, the Respondent should be given fifteen (15) days to respond to such Motion (i.e., ten days 

### + five days mailing) before the Court issues any ruling. However, the parties' Settlement Agreement specifiedthat the Respondent was "waiv[ing] any further right it may have to

...request a hearing" (Att. A 1,**~** 3). The SettlementAgreement also specified that the FAA would deem the "matteris closed" upon the Respondent's paymentofthe civil penalty andthe FAA's issuance ofthe Assessment Order (Att. A 1,**~~** 1-2). Thus, the parties have mutually acted to showthat neither wishes to go forward withthe formal hearing, and the FAA'sMotionto Dismiss may be granted on the grounds that the parties have fully settled the matter andjointly seek dismissal.

After reviewing all relevant caselaw, decisions, regulations, statutory authority, pleadings, andbeing fully advised;

### IT IS 

### HEREBY ORDERED: 1) The Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, set for December 8, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time is cancelled.
2) Pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.218(f)(2), the FAA has presented proofthat the parties have fully settled this matter, and that both partiesjointly seek dismissal ofthese proceedings without further delay. 3) Based on the parties' settlement, this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice

Attachment: Service ListDocketNo. FAA-2015-1323 (Civil Penalty Action)



### 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 2W1000 1

Mr. Christopher R. Stevenson Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 ONE COPY

Federal Aviation Administration, Southern Region 1701 ColumbiaAvenue College Park, GA 30337 TEL: 404-305-5200 FAX: 404-305-5223 

### Mr. DonFoynes, Commercial Director Reagecon Diagnostics Ltd. Respondent Unit 21 to 23 Bay F Shannon Free Zone County Clare Ireland TEL: +353(0)61 472622 FAX: +353(0)61 472642
Judge J.E. Sullivan U.S. Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention:. Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.