In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: December 1, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASIDNGTON, DC 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1323 

REAGECON DIAGNOSTICS LTD. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2013S0700292 

Respondent 

ORDER DISMISSING 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. 

On November 30,2015 the FAA filed a Motion to Dismiss Request for Hearing and 

Motion to Suspend Rule 16 Conference ("Motion to Dismiss"). 

Brief Discussion · 

Attached to the FAA's November 30,2015 Motion to Dismiss was a Settlement 

Agreement, executed by the parties in July 2015 (Attachment A), in which the prose 

Respondent, Reagecon Diagnostics Ltd., agreed to fully resolve the matter herein by accepting 

responsibility for the alleged charges in the FAA's June 23, 2015 Complaint and paying a civil 

penalty in the amount of$8,000. The FAA's Motion to Dismiss also included a September 22, 

2015 Order Assessing Civil Penalty ("Assessment Order")(Attachment B), in which the FAA 

reiterated that the parties had reached a settlement, and that the Assessment Order was being 

issued per the "terms and conditions of the settlement reached by the parties." (Assmt. Order, 1.) 

The Assessment Order also acknowledged that the Respondent had paid the $8,000 penalty 

amount, and that the "matter is now closed." 

In the 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 (1 0) 

business days of receipt of the Assessment Order. (Att. A 1,, 3). The FAA also asserts that the 
Respondent was served a copy of the Assessment Order on October 2, 2015, and in support of 

this assertion, provided a copy of the USPS Tracking Information. (Att. C.) 

Based on the record herein, it appears clear that the pro se Respondent did not file any 

withdrawal of its request for hearing, pursuant to the parties' settlement terms. While this Court 

understands the frustration of the FAA, which was expecting the Respondent to comply with this 

particular settlement term, this Court does not have jurisdiction to oversee compliance of 

privately negotiated settlement terms. The Court would note however, that the terms of the 

Settlement Agreement did not preclude the FAA from simply filing a withdrawal of its 

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, or the 

Respondent may withdraw its Request for Hearing "at any time before or during a 

hearing ... without the consent" ofthe Court. 14 C.F.R. § 13.215. A withdrawal request from the 

FAA would not have changed the primary terms of the parties' negotiated Settlement 

Agreement or the finality of the 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 Motion to Dismiss to be made on any specified grounds. Under 

a strict application of the Rules of Practice, 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 specified that the Respondent was "waiv[ing] any 

further right it may have to ... request a hearing" (Att. A 1, ~ 3). The Settlement Agreement also 

specified that the FAA would deem the "matter is closed" upon the Respondent's payment of the 

civil penalty and the FAA's issuance of the Assessment Order (Att. A 1, ~~ 1-2). Thus, the 

parties have mutually acted to show that neither wishes to go forward with the formal hearing, 

and the FAA's Motion to Dismiss may be granted on the grounds that the parties have fully 

settled the matter and jointly seek dismissal. 

After reviewing all relevant caselaw, decisions, regulations, statutory authority, 

pleadings, and being 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 proof that the parties have 

fully settled this matter, and that both parties jointly seek dismissal of these proceedings 

without further delay. 

3) Based on the parties' settlement, this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice 

Attachment: Service List 
Docket No. 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 2W1 0001 

Mr. Christopher R. Stevenson 

Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration, Southern Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Mr. Don Foynes, 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 Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey 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 or by 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.