SERVED: .January 13, 2017 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTJOBf'A'RTMEHT OF 

Oli'Ji'ICE OF HEARINGS TRANSPORTATION 

W ASIIINGTON, DC p ,,. ZO ZDll JAN 11 "-" 

In The Matter Of: DOCKET OPERATIONS 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

WILLIAM A. CURTRIGHT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2014NM090046 

Respondent 

ORDER GRANTING 

THE Ji'AA'S MOTION TO RESCHEDULE 

On December 14, 2016, an Order Setting New Telephone Conference for Summary 

Judgment Arguments, Setting Deadline for Supplemental Materials, and Granting/Denying Other 

Relief ("December 14, 2016 Order") was filed. Among other things, this December 14, 2016 

Order directed the parties to appear by telephone for a Motion Conference on Wednesday, 

January 25, 2017 (1 :30 p.m.-3:00p.m. Eastern time) to present oral argument on both the 

Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment and the FAA's Cross-Motion. (Dec. 14, 2016 

Order, 7 ~ 4.) 

On January 6, 2017 the prose Respondent, Mr. William A. Curtwright, filed a two (2) 

page Letter, in which he objected to "changing our scheduled hearing [sic] of January 26, 2017 

[sic]" (Jan. 6, 2017 Letter, 1 ). 

Three (3) days later, on January 9, 2017, the FAA filed a two (2) page Claimant's 

Request to Change the Time of the Next Scheduled Prehearing Conference Call ("Motion"). In 

this Motion, the FAA sought to "change the time" of a "prehearing conference call [sic]" which 

the FAA alleged the Court had set for "January 25,2017 at I 0:30am PST [sic]." (Mot. Resched., 

1 ). 
1. Procedural Matter 

First, a procedural issue must be addressed. The record clearly reflects that the December 

14, 2016 Order directed the parties to appear by telephone for a Motion Conference on 

Wednesday, January 25,2017 (1:30 p.m.-3:00p.m. Eastern time). (Dec. 14, 2016 Order, 7 ~ 

4.) Both parties are hereby reminded that any future motion (or response) that refers to court 

orders and directives should accurately reflect what the Order specifically states. In other words, 

if a party seeks relief from a court order or references a court's order, the party has a basic 

obligation to accurately identify the directives and information contained in the Order (e.g., the 

type of conference, the date of the conference, the time, the time zone, etc.). 

2. Brief Discussion Regarding the Motion 

The FAA has filed a general motion, pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.218(a), seeking a 

rescheduling of the January 25, 2017 (I :30 p.m. EST) Motion Conference. Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. 

§ 13 .218(b ), the FAA has provided "particular grounds" in support of its Motion. Although the 

Respondent filed his Letter three (3) days prior to the FAA filing its Motion, this Letter (which 

primarily focuses on discovery issues), also contains a general assertion by the Respondent that 

he "believe[s]" the FAA's stated reasons for requesting a change in the scheduled time set for the 

Motion Conference should be viewed with suspicion. (Letter, 1 ~ 1 ). 

Because the Respondent's January 6, 2017 Letter directly opines on the FAA's January 9, 

2017 Motion, the Respondent's January 6, 2017 Letter is deemed to be the Respondent's 

response to the Motion, pursuant 14 C.P.R.§ 13.218(d). Thus, the Court need not wait until 

January 19, 2017 (i.e., ten days after service of the motion) for any further response from the 

Respondent. 

The pro se Respondent did not provide any factual evidence or testimony to support his 

assertion that the FAA's Motion, and the grounds offered in support of its Motion, should be 

viewed with suspicion. Absent any other basis offered in opposition to the Motion, the 

Respondent's objection lacks merit, and the FAA's Motion should be granted. In addition, in 

regard to the Respondent's renewed requests for discovery, those issues will be shortly addressed 

by separate Order. 

Page 2 of 3 
3. Conclusion 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.205 and 13.218, and after reviewing all relevant caselaw, 

regulations, statutory authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The FAA's Motion, in which it seeks a rescheduling of the January 25, 2017 (1 :30 p.m. 

EST) Motion Conference, is granted over the Respondent's objection. 

2. The January 25, 2017 (1 :30 p.m. EST) Motion Conference is hereby rescheduled to 

February 8, 2017 (1 :30 p.m.- 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time). Oral argument will be heard 

regarding both the Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment and the FAA's CrossMotion. Should time permit, final status of discovery as well as potential hearing dates 

(in the event the matters herein are not fully resolved by summary judgment) will also be 

addressed. To access the Court's Conference line, the pat1ies shall dial 888-278-0296 and 

enter code 5851842. 

3. For clarifications of this order or questions with regard to the procedures to be followed 

in this case, please contact Mr. Cody L. Smith, Attorney-Advisor at the Office of 

Hearings (202-366-6941 ). 

Attachment: Service List 

Judg 

U.S. 

Page 3 of 3 
' 4 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

(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 2W10001 

Mr. David F. Shayne 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

1601 Lind Avenue S.W. 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1847 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

Dr. William Ames Curtright, DBA 

Respondent 

P.O. Box 1350 

Jefferson, OR 97352 

TEL: 503-209-7388 

FAX: 503-485-0812 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

ONE COPY 

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 2WJOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.