### r^FpARTMENlO F

V^ANSFORT/BEraR

E TH E FEDERAL AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N ''wOKr J OPLRATION S Judg e Not Ye t Assigne d ) F A A Docke t

No . no t ye t assigne d ] M K^ ^ - ' • P 2

- 5 1 ) FAACaseNo.:2011EA17002 4 I n th e Matte r

o f )

) BRENDA N AIRWAYS . LLC . \ ) M O Respondent s



### ) ft d 2 2:201 2 ) 

# HEARIN G DOCKE T Come s no w th e Respondent , Brenda n Airways , LLC d/b/aUS A 300 0 Airline s [hereinafter

"US A 3000" ] an dmove s fo r dismissal o f

th e Administrator' s Complain t i n thi s matte r pursuant to 14C.F.R . § 13.218(0(1 ) and/o r (0(2) . SUMMAR Y O FTH E MOTIO N Th e Administrator' s Complain t allege s aviolatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . § 119.5(g) . US A 300 0 bring s thi s Motio n to Dismis s o n th e basi s o f th e Administrator' s failure to alleg e fact s sufficien t t o establis h aviolatio n o f § 119.5(g) , eve n when take n i n th e light

mos t favorabl e to th e Administrator . Sectio n 119.5(g ) forbid s a n ai r carrie r fro moperatin g i

n violatio n o f

it s certificate , operation s specifications , deviatio n authority or exemptio n authority . Th e Complain t specifie s tha t the operation s specification s requir e complianc e wit h th e federa

l aviatio n regulation s concernin g supplementa l operations , but ther e are missin g element s fromth e allegation s o f th e Complaint . Th e Complain t fail s to state aregulatio n tha t wa s infringed , s o ther e i s a n insufficient basi s to clai mtha

t thi s operation s specificatio n wa s infringed . Second , eve n i f th e complaint

ha d allege daspecifi c regulatory violatio n concernin g supplemental operations , th e complain t fail s to alleg e tha t the operation s i

n questio n were subjec t

to th e fligh

t cre w dut y tim e an dres t

provision s o f th e supplemental operation s (becaus e th e Administrato r know s tha

t the y were not) . Thus , th e fact s i n th e Administrator' s Complain t fai l to alleg e sufficient

fact s t o sho w aviolatio n o f th e allege doperation s specificatio n tha t i s described .

RESPONDEN T US A 300 0 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an d th e MOTIO N T O DISMIS S La w OfTice s o f Jaso n A . Dickstei n Pag e I 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue . NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tei : 202-628-677 6Th e Administrato r doe s not alleg e fact s i

n it s Complain t

sufficient t o sho w aviolatio n o f § 119.5(g) . Becaus e th e Administrato r faile dt o alleg e fact s sufficien

t to establis h aviolation , th e Complain t

mus t be dismissed . PROCEDURA L HISTOR Y O FTH E CAS E I n late 2011 , US A 300 0 receive daFina l Notic e o f

Propose dCivi l Penalt

y fro mthe FA A proposin g acivi l penalt y i n th e amoun t

o f $37,000 . O n December 27 , 201 1 US A 300 0 submitte dawritte n deman dfo r ahearing . O

n Januar y 17 , 201 2 th e FA

A filedth e Complain t

i n thi s case . Th e FA

A allege daviolatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . § 119.5(g) . US A 300 0 no w submit s thi s Motio n to Dismis s o n th e ground s tha t the FA A ha s failedto alleg e fact s sufficient to establis h a violatio n o f

§ 119.5(g) . 

## I . MOTIO N T O DISMIS S There i s onl y on e clai mraise di n thi s case . Th e Administrato r claim s tha

t US A 300 0 violate d1 4 C.F.R . § 119.5(g ) b y failin g to conduc t it s supplemental operation s i n accordanc e wit h a n operation s specificatio n tha t require s complianc e wit

h th e Federal Aviatio n Regulation s pertainin g to supplementa l operations .

1 . APPLICABL E STANDARD S I n orde r to b e sufficien t

i n th e fac e o f

amotio n to dismiss , aclai mmus t mak e out allegation s supportin g eac h o f th e element s o f

the caus e o f

actio n tha

t i s alleged . Th e factua

l allegation s o f

th e complaint , eve n if

rea dth e fact s allege di

n alight mos t favorabl e to the Administrator , fai

l to alleg e th e basi c element s o f the violatio n tha

t th e Administrato r

ha s asserted . I n orde r to prov e aviolatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . § 119.5(g ) i n this particular

case , th e Administrato r

mus t alleg e astandar d(i n thi s case , th e allege dOpSpe c tha t require s US A 300 0 to conduc t it s supplementa l operation s i n accordanc e wit

h the Federal Aviatio n Regulation s RESPONDEN

T US A 300 0 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e MOTIO N T O DISMISS La w Office s o f Jaso n A . Dickstei n Pag e 2 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington

, D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6pertainin g t o supplementa l operations ) an dmus t th e sho w tha i th e standar dwa s infringe d(b y allegin g fact s tha t

sho w tha t

ther e wer e supplementa l operations , an db y allegin g aspecifi c infringemen t

o f th e rule s tha t

appl y t o suc h operations) . I t woul db e inappropriat e fo r th e Cour t

t o rea dth e allegatio n US A 300 0 faile dt o adher e t o Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s pertainin g t o supplementa l operation s i n violatio n o f § 119.5(g ) a s standin g i

n lie u o f factua l allegations , becaus e th e Administrato r ha s no t allege dan y specifi c regulatio n wa s violated . Allegin g lega l conclusions , rathe r tha n allegin g facts , i s insufficien t i n notic e pleading . See , e.g. . Cleg g v . Cul t Awarenes s Network . 1 8 F.3 d752 , 754-5 5 (9t h Cir . 1994 ) (explainin g tha t

"th e cour t

i s no t require dt o accep t

lega l conclusion s cas t i n th e formo f factua l allegation s i f

thos e conclusion s canno t reasonabl y b e draw n fro mth e fact s alleged " an d affirmin g dismissa l o f

complaint) . 2 . TH E 1 4 C.F.R . § 119.5(g ) CLAI M I S INSUFFICIENTL Y PLE D AN D MUS T B E DISMISSE D Th e Administrato r

ha s allege daviolatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . § 119.5(g) . Tha t sectio n states , i n relevan t part : "(g) . N o perso n ma y operat e a s adirec t ai r carrie r o r a s acommercia l operato r without , o r i n violatio n of

, a n appropriat e certificat e an dappropriat e operation s specifications.. . " I n orde r to'prov e aviolatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . § 119.5(g) , th e Administrato r mus t sho w tha t US A 300 0 operate dwithout , o r i n violatio n of

, appropriat e operation s specifications . Ther e i s n o allegatio n i n thi s cas e tha t US A 300 0 faile dt o hav e acertificat e o r operation s specifications . I n thi s case , th e Administrato r allege s tha t

US A 300 0 ha s a n operation s specificatio n tha t require s US A 300 0 t o remai n i n complianc e wit h th e regulation s relate dt o supplementa l operations . Thi s factua l allegatio n mus t b e treate da s tru e fo r

purpose s o f

thi s motion . I n orde r t o prov e th e 119.5(g ) claim , ther e ar e anumbe r o f additiona l element s tha t woul d nee dt o b e prove n throug h facts . Eac h o f thos e element s mus t

b e supporte dthroug h allegation s RESPONDEN

T US A 300 0 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P

C an dth e MOTIO N T O DISMIS S La w Offices o

f Jaso n A . Dickstei

n Pag e 3 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue . NW

. Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6o f

fact s i n orde r fo r th e complain t

to be sufficient . There are element s tha t ar e missin g suppor

t fro mthe factua

l allegations . Th e Administrato r

ha s faile dto alleg e an y Federa l Aviatio n Regulatio n relate dto supplemental operation s tha t (1 ) applie dt o the transportatio n i n questio n and(2 ) thai wa s infringed . Instead , th e Administrato r state s aset

o f fact s relate dt o cre w res t withou t acknowledgin g th e FAA' s prio r acquiescenc e to the us e o f Flag andDomesti c Operation s standard s fo

r US A 3000' s supplementa l operations . I f th e Administrato r

claim s tha

t a n OpSpe c requirin g complianc e wa s infringed , the n th e Administrato r mus t als o state th e applicabl e non compliance , otherwis e th e cas e remain s " amovin g target " andi t become s impossibl e fo

r US A 300 0 t o pin th e Administrato r dow n t o aspecifi c claim . Th e Administrato r

i s oblige dto offe

r "mor e tha

n label s an dconclusions, " Bell Atlanti c Corp . v . Twombiy , 55 0 U.S . 54 4 (2007) . Th e Administrato r ha s faile dt o d o s o i

n th e Complaim . Becaus e o f

th e missin g facts , th e Administrato r ha s failedt o pleadsufficient fact s tha t allo w th e cour

t t o "'dra w th e reasonabl e inferenc e tha t th e defendan t

i s liabl e fo

r th e misconduc t alleged. " See.Ashcrof

t v . Iqbal . 129 S . Ct . 1937 . 194 9 (2009 ) (citin g Bell Atlanti c Corp . v . Twomblv . 55 0 U.S . 544 , 55 6 (2007)) .

3 . PREJUDICIA L CONSEQUENCE S O FTH E INSUFFICIENC Y I f th e cas e ha

dbeen properl y plead , the n aUS A 300 0 defens e i n this cas e woul db e likel y to b e tha t th e FA A ha dpreviousl y acquiesce dto th e us e o f Fla g andDomesti c Operation s standard s fo

r fiight/duty tim e andres t requirements . The FA

A ha dacknowledge dthi s i

n their acceptanc e letter s (an dth e FA A i s permitte dto allo w suc h arelianc e o n th e Flag an dDomesti c Operation s rule s unde r

119.12(a)(3)) . US A 3000' s supplementa l operation s were consisten t wit h th e applicabl e standards . I f the FA A ha dproperl y pleadit s complaint , then i t woul dsimpl e fo

r US A 300 0 to file a dispositiv e motio n o n th e fact s i n orde r t o hav e thi s cas e summaril y decided . Th e Administrator' s failure to properl y pleadsufficient fact s t o support

th e clai mpennit s th e Administrato r

to avoi dadispositiv e motio n b y refusin g to commi t

t o aspecifi c allegatio n RESPONDEN T US A 300 0 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e MOTIO N T O DISMIS S La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n Pag e 4 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue . NW . Suite 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6(whic h make s it exceedingl y difficul t t o sho w tha t

th e FAA" s prio r

acquiescenc e wa s applicable) . Thus , th e Administrator' s failur e t o properl y plea dthi s complain t i s prejudicia l t o th e Respondent , US A 3000 . 

## II . CONCLUSIO N Fo r th e reason s cite dabove , US A 300 0 ask s tha t th e Administrativ e la w Judg e dismis s th e allegatio n o f

violatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . § 119.5(g) . RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTE D thi s 15t h da y o f February . 2012 . WASHINGTO N AVIATIO N GROUP . P C AN D TH E

LA W OFFICE S O FJASO N A DICKSTEI N

/ Jaso n Dickstei n Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3

Washington , D C 2000 7 Tel : (202 ) 628-677 6 Attorne y for

Responden t

Brenda n Airways , LL C d/b/ aUS A 300 0 Airline s

RESPONDEN

T US A 300 0 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P

C an dth e MOTIO N T O DISMIS S La w Offices o

f Jaso n A . Dickstei

n Pag e 5 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue . NW

, Suit e 503 Washington , D

C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E

RE : Brenda

n Airwavs . LLC , FA

A Cas e Number : 20 ! 1EA170024 . Th e undersigne dhereb y certifie s tha t sh e cause dth e attache d MOTIO N T O DISMIS S t o b e filed/servedo n th e person s a t th e addresse s liste dbelo w b y pre-pai dFirs t Clas s Certifie d Mail , Retur

n Receip t Requested , o n th e dat e indicate dbelow . Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (original andon e copy ) 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbur Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W100 0 Zachar y M . Berinan , Attorne y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o f the Regional Counse l 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica . N

Y 1143 4

Feb.15 . 201 2 Kat t Brigha m/ y Date

RESPONDEN T US A 300 0 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C andth e MOTIO N T O DISMIS S La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n Pag e 6 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suite 50 3 Washington . D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6