U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. I') 

!/ 0 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

RIAN C. SEEMAN. FAA Docket No. FAA-2012-0198 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

Respondent. 

FAA CASE NO. 2011S0370103 

MOTION TO DEEM ALLEGATIONS ADMITTED AND 

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

q: OS 

The Complainant, by and through the undersigned attorney, pursuant to Section 13.218 of 

the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions [14 C.F.R. §13.218], and Rule 55 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby moves for an Order deeming admitted the allegations in 

the Complaint dated February 17, 2012, and requests that the Administrative Law Judge enter a 

Judgment by Default in favor of the Complainant. In support of his motion, Complainant states 

the following: 

1. 

On or about April9, 2012, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Setting Rule 16 

Litigation Scheduling Conference and Directing Rule 26(f) Planning and Submission. By Order 

the Scheduling Conference was set for June 5, 2012 at 11 :OOam. In response to the ALJ's April 

9, 2012 Order on or about April 13, 2012, the Complainant filed its Motion for Continuance of 

the Rule 16 Litigation Conference and stated that prior to the setting of the Conference by the 

ALJ, she had scheduled a pre-paid vacation for the week of June 4-8, 2012. 

1 
•' 

On May 25, 2012, the AU issued her Order Granting FAA's Motion for Continuance of 

CR 16 Conference and Granting/Denying Other Relief. In the May 25, 2012 Order the ALJ 

noted that as of the date of the Order the Respondent had failed to object or respond to the FAA's 

Motion for Continuance. The ALJ scheduled a Second CR 16 Conference for June 18, 2012 at 

ll:OOam. 

On June 18, 2012, the Respondent failed to appear, despite the Office of Hearings' 

clerical staff attempts to contact the Respondent at both his telephone number of record and at an 

alternate cell phone number. During the conference, Counsel for the FAA indicated that it had 

been in recent contact with Respondent and that the parties were discussing settlement. As a 

result, the FAA requested additional time to pursue settlement discussions. As a result, on June 

18, 2012, the ALJ issued her Order Granting Continuance, Setting Second CR 16 Litigation 

Scheduling Conference, and Granting/Denying Other Relief. In the Order the AU granted the 

FAA's request to continue the CR 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, set deadlines for written 

submissions of the Joint Rule 26(f) Proposed Scheduling/Discovery Plan, and scheduled a 

second CR 16 Litigation Scheduling Telephone Conference for Tuesday, July 10, 2012 at 

9:30am. Additionally, the pro se Respondent was ordered to immediately contact C. Diane Mays 

at the Office of Hearings and to provide a working telephone number for the July 10,2012 CR 16 

conference and for any/all future contact. 

On July 10, 2012, the parties were contacted by the Office of Hearings to convene by 

telephone for the Second Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference. The FAA appeared and 

participated in the Conference. However, the pro se Respondent did not appear, and there was no 

explanation for his absence. The FAA also indicated that the settlement discussions with 

Respondent were not successful. The ALJ noted that as of July 10, 2012, the Respondent had 

2 
failed to contact the Office of Hearings and provide a working telephone number of record. As a 

result, the ALJ issued an Order Setting Default Motion Deadlines and Granting/Denying Other 

Relief. The ALJ established that the Complainant FAA may file a Motion to Deem Allegations 

Admitted and for Default Judgment on or before July 31, 2012. 

2. 

Section 13.209(a) ofthe Rules of Practice requires a respondent to file a written answer to 

the complaint, or file a written motion pursuant to § 13.208(d) or §13.218(f)(l-4) instead of filing 

an answer, not later than 30 days after service of the complaint. 

The complaint, which contained a paragraph informing Respondent he was required to 

file a written answer not later than 30 days after the date shown on. the certificate of service, was 

filed on February 17, 2012. 1 As of this date, Complainant has not received a written answer. 

Therefore, Respondent has not met the filing deadline pursuant to Section 13.209(a). 

3. 

The 30-day deadline for filing an answer cannot be extended without a showing of good 

cause. fu the Matter of Robinson, FAA Order No. 95-28 (1997). "A showing of good cause is 

mandatory. Without it, failure to file an answer by the deadline may not be excused." fu the 

Matter of Atlantic World Airways, fuc., FAA Order No. 95-28 (1995). Moreover, Rule 13.209(f) 

states that failure to file an answer without good cause shall be deemed an admission of the truth 

of each allegation contained in the complaint. See, e~g., fu the Matter of Larry's Flying Services, 

Inc., FAA Order No. 98-4 (1998). Since Respondent has not filed an answer and has not shown 

3 
•' 

good cause for its failure to file an answer, the allegations in the complaint should be deemed 

admitted. 

4. 

Additionally, Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establishes that a court 

may, upon motion of a party, enter a default against a party who has failed to plead or otherwise 

defend. In the instant case, the Respondent has failed to appear by making a presentation or 

submission to the court, i.e. failed to serve any responsive pleading or attend the Rule 16 

Scheduling Conferences. 

By reason of the foregoing, the Complainant respectfully requests that the Administrative 

Law Judge enter a Judgment by Default in favor of the Complainant on the basis that the record 

in this case demonstrates that there has been a failure to plead or otherwise defend as provided by 

Rule 55( a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Attachment 1, Affidavit in Support of 

Motion for Default Judgment dated July 27,2012. 

5. 

As the allegations are deemed admitted and the Respondent has failed to plead or 

otherwise defend this action, there remain no genuine issues of material fact. The Administrator 

has previously held that an order assessing civil penalty shall be assessed when the respondent 

has failed to answer the complaint without showing good cause. FAA vs. Playter, FAA Order 

No. 90-0015 (1990), ajf'd, 933 F.2d 1009 (6th Cir. 1991). Thus, the only remaining issue is 

sanction. 

1

PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to Title 14 CFR Section 13.209(a), you are required to file a written answefto this 

Complaint, or a written Motion to Dismiss if appropriate, not later than 30 days after the date shown on th 

Certificate of Service which follows. See page 7 of Exhibit 1. e 

4 
6. 

The complaint charged Respondent with violations Sections 121.317(g), (h) and (i) of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) (Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations), for smoking in 

the lavatory of AirTran Flight 1422 from Indianapolis, Indiana to Tampa, Florida on or about June, 

4, 2011. During the course of the flight, no-smoking signs were illuminated and posted on the 

aircraft and in the lavatory. While in the lavatory Respondent tampered with the smoke detector. 

In accordance with Sections 46301(a)(1)(A) and (B) of Title 49 of the United States Code 

(Transportation) (49 U.S.C. §46301(a)(1)(A) and (B)), Respondent is liable for a civil penalty 

not to exceed $1,100 for each of the violations of the FARs. Violations of Federal Aviation 

Regulations 14 C.F.R. § 121.317(g) and (h) fall under 49 U.S.C. §46301(a)(1)(A) and (B). 

Moreover, in accordance with Section 46301(b) of Title 49 of the United States Code 

(Transportation) (49 U.S.C. §46301(b)), Respondent is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed 

$2,200 for tampering with the smoke detector? Violations of Federal Aviation Regulation 14 

C.F.R. §121.317(i) falls under 49 U.S. C. §46301(b). 

On October 1, 2007, The FAA published its Compliance and Enforcement Program 

Policy, Order 2150.3B which describes the authority, responsibilities, policies, guidelines, 

procedures, objectives, and legal aspects of the Federal Aviation Administration's compliance 

and enforcement program. The policies and procedures described within the Order explain how 

the FAA generally intends to exercise its discretion in carrying out statutory and regulatory 

enforcement responsibilities. The sanction guidance contained within the Order 2150.3B was 

revised to conform to the statutory maximum civil penalty amounts under Vision I 00-Century 

2 Revisions to the civil penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule and Tables were published in the Federal Register on 

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 (Fed. Reg. Vol. 71, No. 94) where the maximum civil monetary penalty amounts for certain 

violations was adjusted. Violations of 49 U.S.C. 46301(b) Tampering with a smoke alarm devise adjusted to $2,200. 

5 
of Aviation Reauthorization Act. Public Law 108-176-DEC. 12,2003. To that end the FAA 

2150.3B establishes separate civil penalties for violations of the Federal Aviation Regulations, 

including, §§121.317(g), (h), and (i) for smoking while no. smoking sign is lighted, smoking in 

aircraft lavatory, and tampering with smoke detector. See Attachment 2, Appendix B, FAA 

Order 2150.3B, p. B-29. The FAA Order 2150.3B sanction guideline establishes in Appendix B, 

Figure B-3-q sanction amounts for specific passenger violations of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations. The sanction guidance specifies MAXIMUM civil penalties for smoking while a 

No Smoking Sign is lighted and Smoking in the aircraft lavatory. The guidance further 

establishes a civil penalty between $1,800 to $2,200 for tampering with a smoke detector under 

49 U.S.C. §46301(b).3 As a result, in the instant case, the Complainant is seeking $1,000 civil 

penalties each for violations of 14 C.F.R.. §121.317(g) and (h); and $2,200 for violation of 14 

C.F.R. §121.317(i). The total civil penalty sought in this matter is $4,200. By reason of the 

policies established in the FAA 2150.3B, the sanction sought in this matter is within the range 

specified in the FAA's written publicly available sanction guidance. 

The FAA established in its Order 2150.3B that the civil penalty sought in cases involving 

unruly passengers consider not only the individual unruly acts committed, but also the collective 

consequences of all the unruly behavior. As a result, the sanction determination for cases such as 

these is the result of considering the seriousness of the conduct, given the totality of the 

circumstances, to determine an appropriate sanction amount that will deter future violations by 

the unruly passenger and others similarly situated. See Attachment 3, FAA Order 2150.3B at 

Chapter 7, Paragraph 13(f). 

3 See Fig. B-3-q (1) Smoking while No smoking sign is lighted; (2) smoking in aircraft lavatory; and (3) Tampering 

with smoke detector under 49 U.S.C. §46301(b). 

6 
By reason of the foregoing, the Complainant seeks deference to its sanction guidance and 

affirmation of the sanction sought in this matter. 

WHEREFORE, Complainant respectfully requests that its Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted 

be granted and Complainant further prays that the Administrative Law Judge enter a judgment of 

default against Respondent and assess Respondent a civil penalty in the amount of$4,200. 

Respectfully submitted this 27th day of July 2012. 

~~;f;EO~(f Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

7 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion To Deem Allegations Admitted and for 

Default Judgment was mailed by facsimile and Federal Express to: 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

DOT, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor 

Room E12-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

(FAX) (202) 366-7536 

and Federal Express and regular mail to: 

Rian C. Seeman 

12433 Pineneedle Drive 

Indianapolis, IN 46236-3160 

and the original and one copy via Federal Express to: 

Hearing Docket 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Dated 

8 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

RIAN C. SEEMAN. 

Respondent. 

FAA Docket No. FAA-2012-0198 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

FAA CASE NO. 2011S0370103 

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

I, Rashawn Rich George, being duly sworn, state as follows: 

1. I am the attorney for the Complainant in the above-entitled matter and I am familiar with 

the file, records, and pleadings in this matter. 

2. The complaint was filed with the Office of Hearings on February 17, 2012. 

3. The Respondent was served with a copy of the complaint on February 17, 2012, as is 

reflected on the certificate of service attached to the complaint. 

4. An answer to the complaint was due on March 19, 2012. 

5. Respondent has failed to appear, plead, or otherwise defend within the time allowed and, 

therefore, is now in default. 

6. Complainant requests that the Administrative Law Judge enter default against the 

Respondent. 

wn Rich George 

Attorney for Complainant 
•. ' • 10/01/07 2150.38 

Fig. B-3-p. Unruly passengers cont. Civil Penalty Certificate 

Action 

(6) Acts in a manner that poses imminent threat to safety of · $5,000- $25,000 

aircraft or other individuals on aircraft under 49 U.S.C § ($5,000- $27,500 for 

46318 violations after 6/15/2006) 

Fig. B-3-q. Other Violations by Passengers Civil Penalty Certificate 

Action 

( 1) Smoking while No Smoking sign is lighted Maximum 

(2) Smoking in aircraft lavatory Maximum 

(3) Tampering with smoke detector $1,800 to 

under 49 U.S.C § 46301(b) $2,200 

( 4) Failure to fasten seat belt while seat belt sign is lighted Minimum to Moderate 

(5) Failure to occupy an approved seat or berth with a safety Minimum to Moderate 

belt, and, if installed, shoulder harness properly secured during 

movement on the surface, takeoff, or landing 

(6) Operating a portable electronic device Maximum 

(7) Drinking alcoholic beverage not served by carrier Maximum 

4. DUI/DWI PROGRAM, FALSIFICATION OF DRUG CONVICTIONS AND AIRMAN 

MEDICAL CERTIFICATE VIOLATIONS 

Fig. B-4-a. Sanctions related to DUI/DWI Program Civil Penalty Certificate 

Action 

(I) Intentionally false or fraudulent entry on medical Revocation 

certificate application regarding a DUI conviction or of all airman 

administrative action under 14 C.F.R. § 67.403(a)( 1) and medical 

certificates 

(2) Making an incorrect statement on a medical certificate Indefinite 

application regarding a DUI conviction or administrative Suspension 

action under (pending 

14 C.F.K § 67.403(c)(l) correction of 

application 

and 

determination 

of 

qualification) 

or 

Revocation 

of medical 

certificate 

(3) Failure to report a motor vehicle action (MV A) under 14 15- to 45-day 

C.F.R. § 6l.l5(e) Suspension 

of all part 61 

certificates 

( 4) Two MV As arising from separate incidents within 3 years, 90- to 120-

and reported both under day 

14 C.F.R. § 6l.l5(d) Suspension 

of all part 61 

certificates 

B-29 
,, 

\. 

. '\• . 

05/13/11 2150.38 Chg 3 

e. Applicable Sanction Ranges for Security Officers or Others Assigned a Law 

Enforcement Function on a Flight (for example, Federal Air Marshals Assigned to the 

Flight). FAA enforcement pers01mel apply the sanction range applicable to physical assaults or 

threatened physical assaults on crewmembers (Appendix B, part II, Figure B-3-p). 

f. Applying Unruly Passenger Sanction Guidance Tables to Multiple Acts. 

When applying the table to multiple acts by an unruly passenger, FAA enforcement personnel 

consider not only the individual unruly acts committed, but also the collective consequences of 

all the unruly behavior. FAA enforcement personnel do not approach the sanction determination 

for multiple acts as a mechanical exercise of multiplying the number of separate acts of unruly 

behavior by a sanction amount in the range for a single act. Instead, they use the guidance in the 

table and exercise their judgment as to the serio'ilsness of the conduct, given the totality of 

circumstances, to determine an appropriate sanction amount that will deter future violations by 

the unruly passenger and others similarly situated. 

7-26 

ATTACHMENTL_.....l3 ____ _