U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IV ED 

IN THE MATTER OF 

WOOLPERT, LLC 

Respondent 

AUG 2 4 2015 

HEARING DOCKET 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2015-0211 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

Honorable .I.J;: Sullivan 

Hearing Date: NOT YET ASSIGNED 

Hearing Location: NOT YET ASSIGNED 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR DECISION 

SEEKING DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

COMES NOW Woolpert, LLC, Respondent herein, by and through undersigned counsel 

pursuant to Rule 13.218(£)(5) ofthe Rules of Practice (14 C.P.R.§ 13.218(£)(5)), and hereby 

respectfully requests that the Honorable J.E. Sullivan, U.S. Administrative Law Judge, dismiss 

with prejudice the Complaint served on June 9, 2015. 

As more fully discussed below, no genuine issue of material fact exists concerning 

whether Respondent, Woolpert, LLC, operated an aircraft on or about July 31,2013, in 

violation of 14 C.P.R.§§ 91.7(a), 91.407(a)(1), or 91.407(a)(2), as alleged by the Complainant, 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 13 .218( f)( 5), Respondent, Woolpert, LLC, is entitled to a 

decision as a matter of law. 
MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE 

I. The Complaint alleges that on or about July 31, 2015 (i.e., more than 2 years ago), 

Respondent, Woolpert, LLC, "as owner and operator of the aircraft" violated 14 C.P.R.§§ 

91.7(a), 91.407(a)(1), and 91.407(a)(2). See Complaint at Page 2. 

2. 14 C.P.R.§ 91.7(a), entitled Civil aircraft airworthiness, states the following: 

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition. 

See 14 C.P.R.§ 91.7(a) (emphasis added). 

3. 14 C.P.R.§§ 9l.407(a)(1) and 91.407(a)(2), entitled Operation after maintenance, 

preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration, state the following: 

(a) No person may operate any aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless~ 

(1) It has been approved for return to service by a person authorized under §43.7 

of this chapter; and 

(2) The maintenance record entry required by §43.9 or §43.11, as applicable, of 

this chapter has been made. 

See 14 C.P.R.§§ 91.407(a)(1) and 91.407(a)(2) (emphasis added). 

4. 14 C.P.R.§ 1.1, entitled General definitions, states the following: 

Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or authorize to use aircraft, for 

the purpose (except as provided in §91.13 of this chapter) of air navigation including the 

piloting of aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or 

otherwise). 

5. The Complaint is based upon the factual assertion that "Respondent, Woolpert, LLC, 

was advised through aN otice of Proposed Civil Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil 

penalty in the amount of $7,000." See Complaint at Page 1, §I. 

6. The Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty was sent to Respondent, Woolpert, LLC, on June 

18,2014, at 5 Falcon Drive, Suite 102, Peachtree, Georgia 30269. 

2 
7. However, the Complaint is based upon an unsupported factual assertion that "At all times 

relevant herein, Woolpert, LLC, owned and operated a Cessna 402B aircraft, identification 

number N3MZ (hereinafter the aircraft)." See Complaint at Page 1, § II ~ 1 (emphasis added). 

8. It is undisputed that Respondent, Woolpert, LLC, never owned or operated the Cessna 

402B aircraft, identification number N3MZ. 

9. To the contrary, at all times relevant, Woolpert, Inc., with a mailing address of 4454 Idea 

Center Blvd., Dayton, OH 45430, was the registered owner and operator of the subject aircraft. 

See Exhibit A, FAA Registration Information. 

10. Woolpert, Inc., the registered owner and operator of the subject aircraft, is wholly 

separate and distinct from Respondent, Woolpert, LLC, with no common ownership or control. 

11. As such, it is undisputed that Respondent, Woolpert, LLC, never owned or operated the 

subject aircraft. 

12. Therefore, Respondent, Woolpert, LLC never used, caused to use or authorized the use 

of the subject aircraft, as alleged by the Complainant. 

APPLICABLE LAW 

14 C.P.R.§ 13.218 entitled Motions, states the following, in part: 

(a) General. A party applying for an order or ruling not specifically provided in this 

subpart shall do so by motion. A party shall comply with the requirements of this 

section when filing a motion with the administrative law judge. A party shall serve a 

copy of each motion on each party. 

( 5) Motion for decision. A party may make a motion for decision, regarding all or 

any part of the proceedings, at any time before the administrative law judge has 

issued an initial decision in the proceedings. The administrative law judge shall 

grant a party's motion for decision ifthe pleadings, depositions, answers to 

interrogatories, admissions, matters that the administrative law judge has 

officially noticed, or evidence introduced during the hearing show that there is no 

genuine issue of material fact and that the party making the motion is entitled to a 

decision as a matter of law. The party making the motion for decision has the 

burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact disputed by the 

parties. 

3 
See 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(a)(5). 

It is axiomatic that a motion for decision in an FAA civil penalty case is to be decided 

under the same rules that apply to a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. In a case, such as this one, where the burden of proof is on the 

nonmoving party, the standard for deciding a motion for summary judgment was set out by the 

U.S. Supreme Court in the case ofCelotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,322-23 (1986). 

The plain language of Rule 56( c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, upon motion, 

against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element 

essential to that party's case, and on which that party will have the burden of proof at trial. In 

such a situation, there can be no "genuine issue as to any material fact," since a complete failure 

of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all 

other facts immaterial. 

On a motion for summary decision, all evidence and inferences are to be viewed in the 

light most favorable to the nonmoving party; however, a nonmoving party may not rest upon 

mere denials, allegations in pleadings or lawyers' arguments, but must come forward with 

evidence sufficient to raise one or more genuine issues for trial. See, e.g., Citizens State Bank of 

Big Lake v. Transamerica Co., 815 F. Supp. 309 (D. Mirrn. 1993). Even where the nonmoving 

party purports to submit evidence in support of its position, when the nonmoving party has the 

burden of proof at trial, that evidence must be more than "merely colorable;" it must be the kind 

of evidence that, if not rebutted by other evidence, would be sufficient to sustain the burden of 

proof. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. 477 U.S. 242,249-50 (1986). 

4 
CONCLUSION 

In the present case, the Complainant has not and cannot produce sufficient evidence in 

support of its allegations that Respondent, Woolpert, LLC, operated the subject aircraft in 

violation of 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.7(a), 91.407(a)(l), and/or 91.407(a)(2). The Respondent, 

Woolpert, LLC, on the other hand, has come forward with incontrovertible evidence indicating 

that Woolpert, Inc. was the sole owner and operator of the subject aircraft during the alleged 

regulatory violations. 

The Complainant's aircraft registration records establish without a doubt that 

Respondent, Woolpert, LLC, was never the owner or operator of the subject Aircraft. 

Therefore, Respondent, Woolpert, LLC, could not possibly have committed the alleged 

violations, even when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the Complainant. 

Accordingly, the Respondent's motion must be granted, and the Complaint be dismissed 

with prejudice. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent, Woolpert, LLC, respectfully requests that the Honorable 

J.E. Sullivan, U.S. Administrative Law Judge, dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. 

Dated: August 18,2015 

Suite 30 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Tel: (301) 294-8550 

Fax: (301) 294-2525 

Counsel for Respondent 

5 
Exhibit A 
FAA Registry- Aircraft- N-Number Inquiry http://rcgistry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?omn ... 

l of2 

Serial Number 

Manufacturer 

Name 

Model 

Type Aircraft 

Pending Number 

Change 

Date Change 

Authorized 

MFRYear 

402B0220 

CESSNA 

402B 

FAA REGISTRY 

N-Number Inquiry Results 

N3MZ is Assigned 

Aircraft Description 

Status 

Certificate Issue 

Date 

Expiration Date 

Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Type Engine 

None 

None 

1972 

Dealer 

Mode SCode 

(base 8 I oct) 

ModeS Code 

(base 16 I hex) 

Valid 

0211212013 

0212912016 

Reciprocating 

No 

50615713 

A31BCB 

Type Registration Corporation Fractional Owner NO 

Registered Owner 

Name WOOLPERT INC 

Street 4454 IDEA CENTER BLVD 

City 

County 

Country 

DAYTON 

MONTGOMERY 

UNITED STATES 

Engine Manufacturer CONT MOTOR 

Engine Model TSI0-520 SER 

State 

Zip Code 

Airworthiness 

Classification 

Category 

A/WDate 

Standard 

Normal 

0312311978 

OHIO 

45430-1500 

The information contained in this record should be the most current Airworthiness information 

available in the historical aircraft record. However, this data alone does not provide the basis for a 

determination regarding the airworthiness of an aircraft or the current aircraft configuration. For 

specific information, you may request a copy of the aircraft record at http:l/aircraft.faa.gov/e.gov/ND/ 

Other Owner Names 

6/22/!5 12:30 PM 
FAA Registry - Aircraft- N-Number Inquiry 

2of2 

http:/ /registry.faa.gov /aircraftinquiry INN um_Results .aspx?omn ... 

None 

Temporary Certificates 

None 

Fuel Modifications 

None 

6/22/15 12:30 PM 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date sent via U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, an original and one 

copy of the foregoing Respondent's Motion for Decision Seeking Dismissal with Prejudice 

addressed to: 

ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO 

Washington, DC 20591 

And further, that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing via facsimile and U.S. mail, 

postage pre-paid, to the following: 

ONE COPY VIA FACSIMILE NO. 202-366-7536 

Hon. J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Tel: 202-366-6941 

Fax: 202-366-7536 . p 99S 

ONE COPY VIA FACSIMILE NO. 718g5699 · 

Dan Kohlmeyer 

Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration, AEA-7 

I Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

Tel: 718-553-3266 ,.-? 

FZFK: 7U $H %99 ~ 

Counsel for Complainant 

Dated: August 18, 2015 

6 

Grego , Esq. 

The Aviation Law Firm 

1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway 

Suite 300 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Counsel for Respondent