09/11/2014 13:23 Fful 3012942525 Aviation Law Experts

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
IN THE MATTER OF Air Medical Resource Group, Inc. Respondent FAA DocketNO. 2014NM070012 (Civil PenaltyProceeding) DMS NO. FAA-2014-0552 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Hearing Date: NOT YETASSIGNED Hearing Location: Salt Lake City, Utall
RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO THE AGENCY'S MOTION TO DEEM ALLEGATIONS ADMITTED OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STRIKE RESPONDENT'S ANSWER COMESNOW, Respondent, Air Medical Resources Group, Inc. (hereinafter "AMRG"), by and through undersigned coUll5el pursuant to Rule 218 ofthe Rules of 1410001/0013

Practice (14 C.F.R. § 13.218), md respectfully requests that the Court deny, as moot, the Agency's MotionTo DeemAllegations Admitted Or, In The Alternative, Strike Respondent's Answer. As a result ofRespondent's filing an AmendedAnswer and Aff=ative Defenses on September 11,2014, (a copy ofwhich is attached hereto as "Exhibit A"), the Agency'spresent motion has been rendered moot. Therefore, Respondent respectfully requeststhat the Agency's motionbe denied. In support thereof, Respondent states as follows:09/11/2014 13:23 FAX 3012942525 Aviation Law Experts 1410002/0013

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On August 18, 2014, AMRG filed a request for hearingpursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.16, concerning the allegations raised inthe Agency's Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty dated August 6, 2014. 2. On August 26, 2014, the Agency filed a Complaint. 3. On August 27,2014, AMRG filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses. 4. On September 2, 2014, the Agency filed a Motionto Deem Allegations Admitted, or inthe Alternative, Strike Respondent's Answer. 5. On September 11,2014, AMRG filed an Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses. See Exhibit A, attached hereto. ARGUMENT RESPONDENT'S AMENDED ANSWERMOOTS THE AGENCY'S PRESENT MOTION TO DEEM ALLEGATIONS ADMITTED OR TO STRIKE RESPONDENT'S ANSWER. A. RESPONDENT'S AMENDED ANSWER HAS BEEN TIMELY FILED. Pursuant to Rule 13.214 (14 C.P.R.§ 13.214), AMRGproperly filed an Amended Answer andAffirmative Defenses on September 11, 2014. Rule 13.214,Amendmentof pleadings, states the following inrelevant part: (a) Filing and service. A party shall file the amendment with the administrative lawjudge and shall serve a copy ofthe amendment on all parties to the proceeding. (b) Time. A party shall file an amendment to a complaint or an answer within the following: (I)Not later than 15 days before the scheduled date ofa hearing, a party may amend a complaint or an answer without the consent ofthe administrative lawjudge. 209/11/2014 13:23 FAX 3012942525 Aviation Law Experts

(2) Less than 15 days before the scheduled date ofa hearing, the administrative lawjudge may allow amendment ofa complaint or an answer only for good cause shown in a motion to amend. 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.214. As set forth byRule 13.214(b)(1), a party may amend its pleading withoutthe consent ofthe lawjudgewhenthe amendment is filed not laterthan 15 days before the hearing date. Inthe instant proceeding, no hearing date has been set. Therefore, the 1410003/0013

Respondent's Amended Answer was timely filed on September 11,2014. See Exhibit A, attached hereto. 

### B. THE AGENCY'S PRESENT MOTION HAS BEEN RENDERED MOOT BY THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. The Agency's present motion is moot because the Amended Answer supersedes the original Answer. "As a general rule, an amended pleading ordinarily supersedes the original and renders itofno legal effect." Young v. City of MountRanier, 238 F.3d 567, 572 (4th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted); see also 6 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure§ 1476 (2d ed. 1990) ("A pleading that has been amended
... supersedes the pleading it modifies
.... Once an amended pleading is interposed, the original pleading no longer performs any function in the case ...."). Therefore, as the original Answer has been superseded and nullified, there is no longer a live dispute as to the responses contained therein. Accordingly, any motion concerning the original Answer is nowmoot.

309/11/2014 13:23 FAX 3012942525 Aviation Law Experts 1410004/0013

CONCLUSION Inlight ofRespondent's Amended Answer, AMRG respectfully requests thatthe Honorable LawJudge deny as moot the Agency's present motion to deem allegations admitted or strike Respondent's answer. Dated: September 11,2014

4 Respectfully submitted,

regory S. Winton, Esq. Jared M. Allen, Esq. The Aviation LawFirm 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway Suite 300 Annapolis, MD 21401 Tel: (301) 294-8550 Fax: (301) 294-2525 Counsel for Respondent09/11/2014 13:23 FAX 3012942525 Aviation Law Experts 1410005/0013

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this date sent via facsimile and by U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, the foregoing Respondent's Opposition To The Agency's Motion To Deem Allegations Admitted Or, In The Alternative, Strike Respondent'sAnswer addressed to: ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1 000 Fax: (202) 493-5142 And, further, that I have this date sent by electronic mail and by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, a copy ofthe foregoing addressed to: ONE COPY Jeffrey M. Harper, Esq. Office ofthe Regional Counsel FAANorthwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, Washington 98057 Tel: (425) 227-2161 Fax: (425) 227-1007 Jeffrey.harper@faa.gov ONE COPY The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Ave, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, D.C. 20590 Richard.Goodwin@dot.gov Dated: September 11, 2014



### 5 ared M. Allen, Esq. The Aviation LawFirm 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway Suite 300 Annapolis, MD 21401 Tel: (301) 294-8550 Fax: (301) 294-252509/11/2014 13:24 FAX 3012942525 Aviation Law Experts l4l 0006/0013



# EXHIBIT A09/11/2014 13:24 FAX 3012942525 Aviation Law Experts

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
IN THE MATTER OF Air Medical Resource Group, Inc. Respondent FAADocketNO. 2014NM070012 (Civil Penalty Proceeding) DMS NO. FAA-2014-0552 ADMINISTRATIVE LAWJUDGE Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Hearirlg Date: NOT YET ASSIGNED Hearing Location: Salt Lake City, Utall
RESPONDENT'S AMENDED ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1410007/0013

COMES NOW, Respondent, Air Medical Resources Group, Inc. (hereinafter "AMRG"), by and through undersigned counsel, pursuant to Ru]e 209 and Rule 214 ofthe Rules ofPractice (14 C.F.R. §§ 13.209, 13.214) and hereby files the following Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses inresponse to the Administrator's Complaint, served onAugust 26, 2014. ANSWER I. Section I ofthe Complaintdoes not contain any allegations requiring a response. II. I. AMRG admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 1 ofthe Complaint.09/11/2014 13:24 FAX 3012942525 Aviation Law Experts 1410008/0013

2. AMRG admits only that General Operations Manual (GOM), Revision 03-15-13/R-2
was effective fromApril29, 2013, throughAugust 18,2014. AMRGlacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to thetruth or falsity ofthe remainder ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 2 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and deillandsstnctproofthereoi 3. AMRG admits onlythat AMRG's GOM, Revision 03-15-13/R-2, at Chapter4, Paragraph 4.8, states that "Pilots are responsible to ensure they record all co=ercial flight ti01e and rest periods inthe Flight Vector Flight and DutyTrackerwithin 24-hours ofthe completion ofeach duty period." AMRG lacks knowledge or information sufficientto form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe remainder ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3 of the Con1plaint and therefore, denies same and den1ands stnctproofthereof. 4. AMRG admits onlythat Gallup Flying Service, Inc. is the holder ofAir Carrier CertificateNo. GNMA391E. AMRG lacks knowledge orinformation sufficientto form a belief
as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraphnumber4 ofthe Complaint andtherefore, denies same and den1ands stnctproofthereof. 5. AMRG admits onlythat 

### Mr. Ryan Kriss01an was qualifiedto act as pilot-in-colllffiand for operations conducted by AMRG under Part 135. AMRG lacks knowledge or infoflllation sufficientto form a beliefastothe truth orfalsity ofthe remainder ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 5 ofthe Con1plaint and therefore, denies same and demands stnct proofthereof. 6. AMRG admits only that

### Mr. Ryan Kriss01an was qualified to act as pilot-in-co=and for operations conducted by GFS underPart 135. AMRG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth orfalsity ofthe remainder ofthe allegations contained in

209/11/2014 13:24 FAX 3012942525 Aviation Law Experts 1410009/0013

sectionII, paragraph number 6 ofthe Complaintand therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 7. AMRG admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 7 ofthe Complaint. 8. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 8 ofthe Complaint. 9. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraphnumber 9 ofthe Complaint. 10. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number I0 ofthe Complaint. II. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraphnumber II ofthe Complaint. 12. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 12 ofthe Complaint. 13. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 13 ofthe Complaint. 14. AMRG admits only that 

### Mr. Wysowski was approvedto act as a check airman for AMRG inthe BE-90 aircraft. AMRG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth or falsity ofthe remainder ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 14 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 15. AMRG admits only that 

### Mr. Wysowski was qualifiedto act as pilot-in-command for operations conducted byAMRGunderPart 135. AMRG lacks knowledge orinformation sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe remainder ofthe allegations contained in

309/11/2014 13:25 FAX 3012942525 Aviation Law Experts li!l 0010/0013

section II, paragraph number 15 ofthe Complaint andtherefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereo£ 16. AMRG admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 16 ofthe Complaint. 17. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 17 ofthe Complaint. 18. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 18 ofthe Complaint. 19, AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 19 ofthe Complaint. III. l(a). AMRG denies that it violated 14 C.F.R. § 135.2l(a). l(b). AMRGdeniesthatitviolated 14C.F.R. 

### § 135.63(a)(4)(vii). 2. AMRG denies that pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

### §4630l(a) and (d), it is subjectto a civil penaltynot to exceed $11,000 for each ofthe violations alleged. 3. AMRG denies thatunder the facts and circumstances ofthis case, a civil penalty of $12,000 is appropriate. Any other allegations not specifically numbered by paragraph are hereby denied. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. In determining the civil penalty amount, the Complainant has failed to consider (1) the nature and circumstances ofthe violation; (2) the extent and gravity ofthe violation; (3) the respondent's degree ofculpability; ( 4) the respondent's history ofprior violations, ifany; (5) the respondenfs ability to pay the civil penalty; (6) the effect on the entity's ability to stay in



### 4