07/14/2011 10.59 FAX 2024935142 

07/08/2011 0g:52 d252271Qti7 

FAA - QMS 

ANM7 

21005/008 

PAGE ni/0 ^ 

FACSnvnLE MESSAGE 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL 

AiMVl-7 

1601 LIND AVENUE S.W. 

RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 

The inforraauon contained in this facsimile message is legally privileged and corfidential 

information and is intended only for the use of ihe individual named on this cover sheet. 

If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 

usGj dissemination, distribution, or copy of this facsimile is strictly prohibited. If you 

have received this facsimile in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 

425-227-2007. 

DATE: 

TO: 

FAX NO.: 

PHONE NO.: 

RE; 

July 8, 2011 

Docket Clerk AGC-430 

202-493-5142 

FAA Case No. 

2008NM700127 & 

2008NM700126 

CPlONMOOll & 

CPIONMOOIO 

NO. PAGES: 

FROM: 

FAX NO.: 

PHONE NO.: 

EMAn.: 

4 including cover 

Moifair Chin 

425-227-1417 

425-227-2007 

M01FArR.CHIN@FAA.GOV 

Opposition to Respn Motion for Continuance 
07/14/2011 10:59 FAX 2024935142 

07/99/2011 03:52 a2S22?10O7 

FAA ^ DMS 

ANM7 

gjOOS/OOB 

PAGE 02/0 J 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

6 

9 

-0 

11 

12 

J3 

14 

15 

15 

17 

19 

19 ^ 

2D 

21 

22 

25 

24 

25 

25 

2-7 

2B 

25 

3D 

31 

32 

33 

3£ 

3« 

37 

?3 

35 

40 

41. 

42 

43 

44 

45 

IS 

i7 

49 

49 

EO 

51 

53 

£3 

KYLEELOMAZOW 

FAA omcE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL 

1601 LlND AVE., SW 

RENTON, WASHrKGTON" 98057 

TELEPHONE: 425/227-1847 

FACSIMILE; 425/227-1007 

''APARTMENT OF 

•iRANSPORIATiON 

^^•CKETOPfRATtONS 

2011 Jul !U P !: 13 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASaiNGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of: 

FEDEKAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 

In. the Matter of: 

CORPORATE AIR 

FAA Docket No. CPlONMOOl 1 

FAA cAseNo. 2OO8NM7O0127 

DMS No. FAA-2010-0977 

FA.\DockaNo. CPIONMOOIO 

FAA case No. 2008NM700126 

DMSNo.F.\A-20lO-0975 

Judge: Richard C. Goodwin 

Cuxnplainant's Opposition to Respondent's Motion for Continuance 

Complainant by and through its \indersigned attomey and hereby fiJes its Opposition lo 

Respondent's Motion for Continuance. Complainant opposes the Motion for the following 

reasons: 

1. Respondent's Counsel filed a Notice of Appearance OT» May 18.. 2011 and has had moie 

than enough time to prepare these cases for trial. R^itjer than filing a Motion for 

Continuance initially, Respondent's counsel filed a Motion to Consolidate instead. 

Respondent's Counsel filed a Motion for Continuance nearly two months after filing a 

Notice of Appearance. Complainant has been pTcpariiog its witnesses and evidence for trial 

during this time &ame. These cases have already been continued once b>' agreement of both 

parties because the original trial was set for June of 2011. A second continuance would 

prqudice Complainant and would not result in judicial efficiency. 

The cases tliat are the subject of Respondent's Motion for Continuance are separate and 

distinct cases; The facts of these cases aie distinct and they have distinct witnesses. 

Respondent's Counsels basis for iheir Motion for Continuance is the pending 

Administrator's decision in the Empire Air case, FAA Docket CP09NM0009. DMS No. 

FAA-2009-0586 (2007 Empire Aii"). FAA Case No. 2007NM70015. In the 2007 Empije 

Air case, both parties appealed ihe Initial Decision. The interest of justice does not require a 

delay in every case in \^1iich a Respondent would have similar defenses in regards To a 

separate action. Therefore there is no legitimate reason to continue these cases. 

2. The alleged violations in the case, now before the Administrative Law Judge occurred in 

early 2008. Granting a continuance would prejudice Complainant's case in that, il would 

compromise our evidence and the mcmoty of our witnesses. Respondent asks for a delay of 

Complainaiil's Opposition to Respondent's Motion for Continuance 

FAA V. CojTJoraTe Air 

FAADoeltetNo. CPlONT^dOOll &CP]ON^fOOIO 

Page 1 of 3 

iTt'Ji E- LObCOoa', FA-A. ATTORXEY 

TEL: 425,227.1 &47; FAX: 425.227.1007 
O7/U/20n 10 59 FAX 2024935142 

07/09/2011 Dy:52 d2522710a7 

FAA - OMS 

ANM7 

aOOT/OOS 

PAGE n2/0J 

3 

4 

5 

5 

a 

9 

i: 

12 

13 

14 

IS 

16 

17 

IS 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

2S 

27 

28 

23 

Jl 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

3"? 

3S 

39 

^0 

41 

42 

43 

4 1 

4S 

4.6 

51 

52 

Si 

4. 

nine months or tmtil a final decision in the 2007 Empire Air case on appeal is issued. There 

is no way to know exactly when thai decision 'wiU be issued. The urvcertaiaty of vi'hen a 

decision will be issued should be reason alone to deny Respondejit's motion. 

There is no reason to grant the Motion for Continuance in regards to the alleged violations 

against Federal Express. This case can be tried at hearing without considering the issues 

relating to the Uability of feeder airlines that is addressed in Respondent's Motion for 

Continuance. 

For the reasons stated above, the Respondent's Motion for Continuance should be denied in 

toto. If a c(tatinuanc« is granted, a contiauance should onJy pertain to the Empire Air and 

Corpora.te Air cases, for tliere is no basis to further delay the Federal Express Cases. 

DATED this 8th day of July, 2011. 

Respectfully submiaed, 

KylcE. Lomazow 

FAA Attorney 

\ 

Couplaituinl 's Opposition to Respendcit 'i Motion for CorOlmiance 

F.i ^ V, Corpornie Air 

FAA Docket No. CFlONMOOn t CPJONUOOIO 

Page 2 o.f 3 

KYLE E. LOSlAZOW, FAA ATTOWHrV 

TXL: i25,:^7 1847; FAX " 425.227.1007 
07/U/201 1 ,0:5 9 FAX 202.9351, 2 FAA . 0«S ^008/00 8 

07/0B/201 1 09:5 2 a25227]0e 7 A^JM7 .PAGE: IM/C^ 

10 

1 1 

12 

13 

14 

15 

IS 

I f 

l e 

.".9 

2C 

2 1 

32 

2S 

24 

2 5 

26 

2-7 

2B 

2& 

30 

31 

3 2 

33 

3 4 

35 

36 

3 7 

3a 

39 

40 

41 

42 

13 

4-4 

45 

41^ 

47 

4& 

4? 

5 5 

51 

55 

53 

CERTIBCATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Motion in Opposition to Respondent's Motion for Continuance 

has been served viz facsimile and Certified Mall - Return Receipt Requested this date, to the 

folio wi aft: 

The Honorable Richard C Goodwin 

Office of hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue. S.EEast Building Ground Floor, Rm E12'320 

Washing:ton, D.C. 20590 

TBU 202.366M39 

F^\X; 202-366.7536 

FederaJ Aviation Admin.i^^ation 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suile 2W1000 

FAX: 202,493.5142 

Glen P. Wicks 

Roncevert D. Almond 

The Wicks Group, PLLC 

1215 17^ Street, NW 

Summer Annex, Fourth Floor 

Washington, DC 20036 

Tel: (202~) 457-7790 

Fax:(202)457-7799 

Crathia Chandlcr-SDel] 

Staff Attomey, Federal Express, Inc. 

3620 Hacks Cross Road 

BuiJdingB, 3"^FIooT 

Memphis, TN 38125-S8O0 

TEL: 901.434.8361 

FAX: 901.434.8283 

Dated this 8th day of July, 20II. 

4,4A> 

MOIFAIR CHIN 

Office of Regional Counsel (AN^'J.-7) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 LindAvc, SW 

Renton^WA 98057 

425.227.2160 

Complaijiani's OpposiSff/ito Hzfpc/ui£Ht'vMoticitfarContinuanrff KTLEE. LO^^c:oa•, FAAAlTORJ.Ty 

F A A V Corporate ,fir 

V.\A Docket No. CPlOT^fOOll & CP10>IM0O]D TTL; 475.Z27.:S47; pAX: 425.227,1007 

Page 3 of 3