BEFOR E TH E FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D.C . 

# i e E 8 WE



# " ^ " 

# I AIRPORT/ENVIRONMENTA L LAW , AGC-60 0 

# n \

SKYDIV E SACRAMENTO ,

Complainant , V . TH E CIT Y O FLINCOLN , CALIFOR^JIA ,

Respondent . Docke t No . 16-09-0 9

MEMORANDU M I N SUPPOR T O FRESPONDENT' S MOTIO N T O DISMIS S

Pleas e serve : Scott P . Lewi s Christin e M . Griffi n ANDERSO N &

. KREIGE RLL P On e Canal Park , Suit e 20 0 Cambridge , M A 0214 1 T : 617.621.650 0 F : 617.621.666 0 slewis@andersonkreiger . co m cgriffin@andersonkreiger.co m Counse l fo

r Responden t — (

Septembe r

21 , 200 9Tabl e o f Content s Pag e Introductio n 1 Argumen t 2 I . SKYDIV E CANNO T MEE T IT S BURDE N O FPROVIN G THA T TH E CIT Y I S CURRENTL Y VIOLATIN G APPLICABL E FEDERA L REQUIREMENT S 2 II . SKYDIV E HA S NO T SHOWN THA T ITI S A VICTI M O FUNJUS T ECONOMI C DISCRIMINATIO N 3 A . Applicabl e Lega l Standard s 3 B . Skydiv e I s No t

Similarly-Situate dT o An y Existin g Aeronautica l Tenan t 6 C . Th e City Has Th e Proprietary Righ t T o Determin e Th e Locatio n O f Skydive' s Support

Facilitie s An dT o Limi t

Us e O f Th e Dro p Zon e T o Peirachut e Jimipin g 7 1 . Skydiv e ha s n o right t o buil dsupport

facilitie s at

th e dro p zon e 8 2 . Skydiv e ha s n o right t o complai n tha t

th e City wil l onl y allo w Skydiv e t o us e th e dro p zon e for parachut e jumpin g 1 0 D . Skydiv e Has N o Righ t T o A Long-TermLeas e 1 1 E . Skydive' s Man y Complaint s Abou t Leas e Boilerplat e D o No t Rais e An y Seriou s Federa l Issue s 1 3 1 . Annua l Ren t

Increas e 1 3 2 . Insuranc e Requirement s Applicable t o Skydiv e 1 3 a . Commercial Liability Insuranc e 1 4 b . Automobil e Liability Insuranc e 1 4 3 . Insuranc e Coverag e for Subcontractor s 1 5 4 . Payment s o f

City' s Insuranc e Premium s 1 5 5 . Indemnificatio n 1 6 6 . Conflictin g Leas e Terms 1 6Pag e 7 . Tim e i s o f

th e Essenc e 1 7 8 . "Insulting " Recital s 1 7 m . TH E CIT Y HA S NO T IMPOSE D AN Y "UNATTAINABLE " CONDITION S AN D THA T CLAI M I S MOO T 1 7 IV . SKYDIVE' S "EXCLUSIV E RIGHTS " CLAI M HA S N O INDEPENDEN T SIGNIFICANC E 1 9 Conclusio n 2 0

1 1BEFOR E TH E FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D.C .

SKYDIV E SACRAMENTO ,

Complainant , v . TH E CIT Y O FLINCOLN , CALIFORNL\ ,

Respondent . Docke t No . 16-09-0 9

MEMORANDU M I N SUPPOR T O FRESPONDENT' S MOTIO N T O DISMIS S Th e respondent , th e Cit y o f Lincoln , Californi a(th e "City") , submit s thi s memorandu m unde r 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.23(j ) i n support o f it s motio n t o dismis s th e Complain t b y Skydiv e Sacrament o ("Skydive") . Introduction . Th e City i s th e owner , operato r an dsponso r

o f th e Lincoln , Californi aRegiona l Airport (th e "Airport") . Skydiv e currentl y operate s askydivin g busines s a t th e Airport , but

use s off

Airport "dro p zones. " Skydiv e ha s sough t t o leas e spac e withi n th e Airport for us e a s adro p zon e an dasupport

facility . In aserie s o f

revise dleas e form s tha t

attempte dt o respon dt o Skydive' s demands , th e City ha s offere dt o leas e suitabl e spac e t o Skydiv e fo r us e a s adro p zone . Th e City has , however , reasonabl y rejecte dSkydive' s reques t t o buil dasupport

facilit y adjacent t o th e dro p zon e o r

t o us e th e dro p zon e for

non-skydivin g purposes . Skydive' s complain t arise s ou t

o f dispute s with th e City concernin g th e term s an dcondition s o f th e leas e propose db y th e City .Skydive' s complain t present s atangled , repetitiv e an dconfusin g we b o f factual allegation s an dlegal arguments . In th e end , however , th e complain t reveal s that

al l o f Skydive' s claim s ar e drive n b y it s objection s t o th e term s o f th e las t o f th e thre e propose dleas e form s tha t th e Cit y offered , sen t

t o Skydiv e o n Apri l 30 , 200 9 (th e "Lease" ) {see Skydiv e Ex . 19). * Skydive' s Complain t

allege s tha t

certai n o f

th e term s o f

th e propose dLeas e violat e federal aviatio n law because , accordin g t o Skydive , the y (a ) constitut e imjus t economi c discrimination ; (b ) impose unattainabl e conditions ; o r (c ) constructivel y gran t

unlawfu l exclusiv e rights. Th e City denie s that

i n attemptin g t o accommodat e Skydive' s desir e for adro p zon e a

t th e Airport

th e Cit y ha s violate dan y o f

it s obligation s a s a

n AI P gran t

sponsor . Th e City ask s th e FA A t o dismis s Skydive' s complaint . Argument . I . SKYDIV E CANNO T MEE T IT S BURDE N O FPROVIN G THA T TH E CIT Y I S CURRENTL Y VIOLATIN G APPLICABL E FEDERA LREQUIREMENTS . A s th e complainant , Skydiv e ha s th e burde n o f provin g that

ther e i s areasonabl e basi s fo r further investigatio n unde r

1 6 C.F.R . § 16.29(a) ; an di f an investigatio n i s undertaken , Skydiv e bear s th e burde n o f

provin g tha t

th e Cit y i s currentl y violatin g applicabl e federal obligations . Se e Steer e v . Count

y o f San Diego , Docke t

No . 16-99-15 , 200 4 W L3198209 , at *1 4 (Dec . 7 , 2004 ) (Final Decisio n an dOrder ) (burde n o f proo f o n complainan t

i n Pt . 1 6 proceeding) ; Kent B . Ashto n V . Cit y o f Concord , FA A Docke t

No . 16-99-09,200 0 W L1387887 , at *1 4 (Jul y 3,2000 )

' Skydive' s complain t allude s t o on e non-leas e claim : Skydiv e allege s i n it s Complain t (^I35 ) that

th e Cit y ha s refuse dt o allo w Skydiv e t o participat e i n adiscoun t progra mfo

r fuel customer s at

th e Airport . Th e City admit s that i t offer s adiscoun t

t o large-volum e purchaser s o f fuel . Thi s offe

r currentl y provide s discount s fo r large-volum e customer s wh o bu y mor e tha n 30 0 gallon s o f fuel i n asingl e purchas e fromth e Airport' s je t fue l truck . Th e City ha s neve r barre dSkydiv e fromparticipatin g i n th e program ; Skydiv e ha s no t qualifie dfor

an y discount s becaus e i t

ha s neve r bough t th e require dminimu mvolume s o f je t fuel i n asingl e purchase . Thi s fuel discoun t progra mi s primaril y use db y larg e privat e o r charte r busines s je t

aircraf t tha t bu y fuel at

th e Airport

(Answer , H 35) . Ther e i s n o reaso n fo

r th e FA A t o investigat e thi s clai mo r tak e an y enforcemen t

actio n concernin g th e City' s fuel discounts .(Fina l Decisio n an dOrder ) ("Ashton" ) (same) ; 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.229(b ) (proponen t o f orde r ha s th e burde n o f proof) ; 5 U.S . C . § 556(d ) (AP A allocate s burde n o f proo f t o proponen t

o f agenc y action) ; Director . OWC P v . Greenwic h Collieries , 51 2 U.S . 267 , 27 1 (1994 ) (agenc y boun dt o follo w AP A o n burde n o f proo f absen t contrary statutory directive) ; Ai r Canad av . DOT , 14 8 F.3 d1142,114 5 (D.C . Cir . 1998 ) (DO T propert y assigne dburde n o f proo f t o complainan t

i n Pt . 30 2 rat e proceeding) . Skydiv e canno t possibl y mee t

thi s burde n unde r

4 9 U.S.C . § § 4710 7 & 40103(e ) o r

unde r eithe r Gran t Assuranc e 2 2 (unjus t

discrimination ) o r

Gran t Assuranc e 2 3 (exclusiv e rights).^ II . SKYDIV E HA S NO T SHOW N THA T I T I S A VICTI M O FUNJUS T ECONOMI C DISCRIMINATION . A . Applicabl e Lega l Standards . Thi s i s no t

acas e wher e an airport

sponso r ha s refiise dt o allo w parachut e jumpin g at a n airport . After

th e FA A determine dthat ajum p zon e coul dsafel y b e locate da t th e Airport , th e City proceede dt o offe

r Skydiv e apropose dleas e an dthe n mad e tw o set s o f revision s t o it s propose dleas e term s i n a n effor t t o com e t o an agreemen t (Answer , | ^ 5 , 23 , 27 , 36-38) . Skydiv e rejecte dth e City' s propose dleas e an dfiled aPt . 1 6 complain t focuse do n aclai mo f unjus t economi c discrimination . Skydive' s clai mo f

unjus t discriminatio n i n violatio n o f 4 9 U.S.C . § 4710 7 an dGran t Assviranc e 2 2 i s animate db y it s allegation s that th e thir ddraf

t o f th e Leas e offere db y th e City ha s unfavorabl e term s tha t are different

tha n th e term s o f

lease s th e City ha s entere dint o with othe r commercia l aeronautica l operator s at th e Airport . Skydiv e appear s t o believ e that th e Cit y ha s afederal obligatio n t o leas 6 airport propert y t o Skydiv e o n exactl y th e sam e term s i t ha s Skydive' s exclusiv e right s complain t reUe s onl y upo n § 40103(e ) an dneve r explicitl y call s ou t

Assuranc e (continued... )offere dt o an y othe r aeronautica l tenant s that

hav e groun dleases , n o matte r ho w different

thei r activities , investment s i n th e Airport o r other circumstance s may b e {see Complaint , ^ 43). ^ Skydiv e attempt s t o roo t

it s argumen t

i n FA A Orde r

5109.6A , § 4.8.b . There , th e FA A recites : Parachut e jumpin g i s an aeronautica l us e an drequest s t o airport owner s from parachut e jumpin g clubs , organization s o r individual s t o establis h adro p zon e withi n th e boundarie s o f

a n airport shoul db e evaluate do n th e sam e basi s a s othe r aeronautica l use s o f

th e airport . Thi s proclamation , th e Cit y believes , wa s intende dsimpl y t o underscor e that an airpor t sponso r canno t categoricall y exclud e parachut e jumpin g fromth e permitte daeronautica l use s o f a n airport . Surel y th e FA A di dno t mean t o say that

a n airport sponso r i s obligate dt o giv e a skydivin g operato r

th e mos t favorabl e leas e term s th e sponso r ha s previousl y give n t o any aeronautica l tenan t

a t th e airport

- n o matte r

ho w dissimilar

thei r situation s ma y be.' * Skydiv e badl y misconceive s th e controllin g legal principles . I t i s wel l establishe dtha

t t o mak e ou t aclai munde r

Assuranc e 22 , Skydiv e mus t sho w that

th e City i s engage di n unjus t economi c discrimination . It i s no t enoug h t o sho w onl y that th e Cit y i s treatin g Skydiv e differentl y tha n othe r

airport tenants . T o prevai l o n thi s claim , Skydiv e mus t establis h both (a ) that th e Cit y ha s give n mor e favorabl e treatmen t t o othe r airport tenant s that

ar e similarly

situate dt o Skydive , an d(b ) that th e Cit y ha s n o legitimat e reason , a s th e Airport proprietor , fo

r

(continued... ) 23 , bu t th e Cit y assume s that

th e FA A wil l conside r

Assuranc e 2 3 i n evaluatin g Skydive' s complaint . ' Skydive' s Complain t wa s presente di n narrativ e form , withou t numbere dparagraphs . Fo r eas e o f reference , th e Cit y prepare dan dattache dt o it s Answe r ahand-numbere dcop y o f Skydive' s Complaint . * I n asimilar

vein , Skydiv e invoke s FA A Orde r 5109.6A , § 3-1 2 fo

r th e propositio n that

th e standard s establishe dfor

commercia l aeronautica l operator s mus t al l b e "equal " (se e Complaint , H 60) .th e differenc e i n treatment. ^ See , e.g. , Penobsco t Ai r Services , Ltd . v . FAA . 164 F.3 d713 , 72 6 (1s t Cir . 1999 ) (affirmin g FA A Pt . 1 6 decisio n that difference s i n leas e term s di dno t constitut e unjus t discriminatio n whe n ther e wa s n o evidenc e that th e premises lease dt o tw o FBO s wer e comparabl e an dth e first

FBO' s rental rat e was se t lo w t o encourage servic e at th e airport) . A s th e Sixt h Circui t ha s observed , "[t]h e statut e prohibit s onl y unjus t discrimination , no t

al l discriminatio n . . .. " Wilso n Ai r Center . LL C v . FAA . 37 2 F.3 d807 , 81 9 (2004 ) (original emphasis ) (affirmin g FA A decisio n rejectin g challeng e t o differential i n renta l rate s "becaus e th e building s wer e not

similarl y situated") . Thes e rule s appl y t o skydiv e operator s i n th e sam e way the y appl y t o an y othe r allege d victi mo f economi c discrimination . See , e.g. . Nationa l Airlif t Support Corp . v . Fremon t

Count y Bd . o f Commissioners , FA A Docke t No . 16-98-18,199 9 W L76884 9 a t * 9 (Final Agenc y Decision ) (Sept . 20,1999 ) (i n disparat e rat e case , afinding o f economi c discriminatio n ha dt o b e basedo n dissimilar

charge s t o "similarl y situate dairport operators" ; complainan t

skydiv e operato r no t similarly-situate dt o UPS) . Th e evidenc e Skydiv e ha s submitte dt o th e FA A withit s Complain t

doe s no t com e clos e t o satisfyin g thes e requirements .

' Th e FAA' s "unjus t discrimination " decision s unde r Pt . 1 6 hav e followe dth e sam e approac h use db y th e federal court s whe n adjudicatin g constitutiona l claim s o f "clas s o f one " economi c discrimination . Se e R/T182 , LL C v . FAA , 51 9 F.3 d307,30 9 (6t hCir . 2008 ) (recognizin g that FAA' s "similarl y sihiated " requiremen t accord s wit

h genera l equa l protectio n principles) . T o prevai l o n aclai mo f thi s kind , aplaintif

f mus t sho w that

i t wa s "intentionall y treate ddifferentl y fromother s similarl y situate dan dthat ther e i s n o rationa l basi s fo r th e differenc e i n treatment. " Vill . ofWillowbroo k v . Olech , 52 8 U.S . 562 , 56 4 (2000 ) (pe r curiam) . Thi s approac h ha s recentl y bee n followe db y th e court s whe n considerin g economi c discriminatio n claim s lodge db y airport tenants . See , e.g. , Executiv e Ai r

Tax i Corp . v . Bismarck , 51 8 F.3 d562 , 566-57 0 (8t h Cir . 2008 ) (rejectin g clai mo f discriminatio n b y an FBO , observin g tha t

"i t i s onl y natura l that

lease s shoul dvary dependin g o n th e size , locatio n an dquality o f th e propert y bein g leased , th e length o f th e leasehold , th e curren t need s an dprioritie s o f

th e partie s t o th e lease , an d man y othe r

factors") ; Rectri x Aerodrom e Centers , Inc . v . Barnstabl e Municipa l Airpor t Commission , F . Supp . 2 d, 200 9 W L 1989096 , at •5- 6 (D . Mass . 2009 ) ("apple s t o apples " compariso n required ; rationa l basi s fo r different treatmen t

sufficient) .B . Skydiv e I s No t Similarly-Situate dT o An y Existin g Aeronautica l Tenant . Before turnin g t o th e specific s o f Skydive' s complaint , i t

i s importan t

for th e FA A t o understan dwh o th e Airport' s curren t tenant s are , what

the y d o a t th e Airport

an dwhat thei r lease s provide. ^ Th e City currentl y ha s groun dlease s with eleve n tenant s at th e Airport

{see Answer , \AF3 ; City Exs . 15-25). ^ Al l o f thes e tenant s ar e eithe r

(a ) long-termaeronautica l tenant s that hav e mad e significan t

capita l investment s i n th e Airport o r (b ) short-termnon-aeronautica l tenant s engage di n activitie s that are no t ope n t o th e public . Skydiv e i s no t similarly-situate dt o eithe r o f thes e tw o kind s o f

tenants . Th e City ha s nin e aeronautica l tenant s a t th e Airport

wh o hav e long-termgroun dlease s that anticipat e tenant-finance dconstructio n o f hangars , aircraf

t manufactur e an drepai r

facilitie s o r othe r permanen t

improvement s a

t th e Airport

(Answer , | AF4 : Mik e Devli n (2001 , 30-yea r leas e for constructio n an dus e o f

hangars ) (City Ex . 15) ; Crosswin dPropertie s LL C (2001 , 30

- yea r leas e for constructio n an dus e o f

hangars ) (City Ex . 16) ; Mar k & Nanc y Machado , d/b/a Velocit y Wes t

(1998 , 35-year

leas e for constructio n an dus e o f

industria l buildin g fo

r manufactur e an dmaintenanc e o f smal l aircraft) (City Ex . 17) ; Grou p Financial , Inc . (1997,40

- year leas e for constructio n an dus e o f

hangars ) (City Ex . 18) ; Nunn o Corporation , Ltd . (1986 , 20-year leas e fo r th e constructio n an dmanagemen t o f hangar s an doffic e space , extende dfo r 1 0

* Skydiv e implie s tha t th e Cit y refuse dt o giv e Skydiv e an opportunity t o revie w othe r Airport groun dlease s an dtherefore that

Skydiv e ca n onl y mak e allegation s abou t what i t believe s th e othe r

lease s contai n (se e Complaint , H 60) . Skydiv e neve r

requeste dth e leas e document s fromth e City , howeve r (Answer , ^ 60) , an dth e City ha s reproduce dal l o f

it s Airpor t

groun dlease s i n th e Supportin g Evidentiary Material s i t ha s submitte dt o th e FA A with it s Answe r

{see Cit y Exs . 15-25) . ' I n thi s brief

, th e Cit y use s "Cit y Ex . _ " t o refer t o designate dexhibit s i t

offere di n th e Supportin g Evidentiary Material s th e Cit y submitte dwith it s Answer ; th e Cit y use s "Skydiv e Ex . _ " t o refer t o th e exhibit s Skydiv e file dwithit s Complaint .year s upo n expiration ) (City Ex . 19) ; Gen e Cantirell an dAmerica n Rive r Development , Inc . (1984 , 50-year

leas e fo r constructio n o f

a n FB O facility for

leas e t o aircraft-relate dbusinesses ) (Cit y Ex . 20) ; Cem o Developmen t Compan y (1983 , 50-yea

r leas e for constructio n o f

a n FB O facility for

leas e t o aircraft-relate dbusinesses ) (City Ex . 21) ; Thoma s Camillucci , Gre g Sanosk i ("Lincol n Skyways" ) an dRobert M . Coon , Edwi n F . Kras s ("Kraco n Aircraft" ) (assignee s o f amende d1978,40-yea r

leas e for constructio n an dus e o f

hangar s an doffic e space ) (City Ex . 22) ; Place r Hangar Co . (1978 , 40-year

leas e for constructio n an dus e o f

hangars ) (City Ex . 23) . Skydiv e canno t

possibl y prov e that

i t i s similarly-situate dt o an y o f thes e aeronautica l tenant s an da s aresul t

it s claim s o f

unjus t economi c discriminatio n mus t b e dismissed . Th e City als o ha s tw o non-aeronautica l tenant s with short-termgroun dlease s at th e Airport (Answer , f

AF5) : DeSilv aGate s FC I ("DeSilva" ) (2008 , one-year leas e for temporary constructio n managemen t office s fo

r highwa y project , renewe dfor on e year (City Ex . 25) ; and Energ y Absorption s Incorporate d("Energ y Absorptions" ) (2006 , two-year leas e fo r conductin g cras h test s usin g automobile s an dhighwa y barrier s n o mor e than si x time s pe r year ) (thi s leas e ha s bee n renewe dtwic e fo r additiona l one-year

terms ) (City Ex . 25) . C . Th e Cit y Ha s Th e Proprietar y Righ t T o Determin e Th e Locatio n O f Skydive' s Suppor t

Facilitie s An dT o Limi t Us e O f Th e Dro p Zon e T o Parachut e Jumping . Currently , th e eas t

sid e o f th e Airport

i s th e cente r

o f al l aeronautica l operations . Th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport

i s undevelope dan dconsist s almos t entirel y o f

ope n spac e locate d outside th e security fenc e that i s use donl y for

non-aeronautica l activities. ^ Skydiv e ha s

' Th e onl y structure s (othe r tha n thre e dilapidated , imoccupie dWorl dWa r Il-vintag e barracks ) currentl y foun do n th e wes t

sid e o f th e Airport

ar e temporary trailer s use db y DeSilv afo r construction managemen t office s (Answer , T

l AF16) . Th e City ha s permitte dDeSilv at o plac e it s temporary constructio n managemen t office s o n th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport

i n cormectio n wit

hth e constructio n o f

th e nearb y Lincol n Stat e Highwa y 6 5 Bypas s projec t {id.) . I n additio n t o thes e temporar y trailers , th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport

i s als o use dfo

r som e othe r

non - (continued... )propose dt o locat e it s jum p zon e o n th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport , consisten t

with th e FAA' s determinatio n that

skydivin g can safel y b e accommodate dther e {se e Complaint , IH

J 3-5,23) . Th e Cit y ha s th e proprietar y right t o determin e th e locatio n o f th e dro p zone , se e Skydiv e Paris . Inc . V . Henr y County . Tennessee , Docke t No . 16-05-06 , 200 6 W L247124 , a t *1 5 (Jan . 20,2006 ) (Director' s Determination ) (recognizin g sponsor' s proprietary right "t o designat e th e locatio n o f on-airport dro p zones") , bu t

i n thi s cas e ther e i s n o disput e abou t wher e i t shoul dbe : th e City ha s agree dt o permi t

Skydiv e t o establis h adro p zon e o n th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport , a s Skydiv e propose d{see Answer , ^

j 23) . Skydiv e complains , however , that th e City i s obligate dt o allo w the mt o construc t a support facilit y o n th e sit e an dus e th e dro p zon e for ho t ai r balloonin g o r

a s ahelicopte r

hove r pad . Skydiv e canno t

show , however , that

th e City i s obligate dt o allo w Skydiv e t o erec t an y buildin g a

t th e dro p zon e o r

us e i t fo r non-skydivin g purposes . Skydiv e als o complain s that th e Cit y ha s a n obligatio n t o giv e Skydiv e along-termlease . Becaus e Skydiv e wil l no t b e makin g an y significan t

improvement s t o th e site , however , th e City' s decisio n t o offe r onl y ashort-term leas e wa s consisten t

with it s federa

l obligations . 1 . Skydiv e ha s n o righ t t o buil dsuppor t

facilitie s a t

th e dro p zone . Skydiv e complain s that

Sectio n 6 o f

th e Leas e prohibit s Skydiv e fromplacing , constructin g o r

buildin g an y building , structur e o r improvement s o n th e lease dpremise s {see Complaint , f f

16-11 ; Skydiv e Ex . 19 , § 6) . Ther e ar e n o aeronautica l facilitie s o r permanen t (continued... ) aeronautica

l purpose s tha

t d o not requir e structures . Th

e Cit y store s mino

r debris , som

e Cit y vehicles , an

dne w trash receptacle s o

n th e west sid e o f th e Airpor t (Answer, ^ AF17) . Th

e Cit y als o permits one of

it s tenants t

o perfor m crash test s involvin

g automobile s an

dhighwa y barrier s o

n a n unuse dportion of

ol drunwa y o n th e west sid e of th e Airpor t {id.) . Ther

e ar e n o othe r activitie s currentl

y taking plac e o

n th e west sid e of th e Airpor t {id.) .stincture s o f an y kin do n th e wes t

sid e o f th e Airport . Skydiv e complains , however , that on e non-aeronautica l tenant , DeSilva , ha s bee n permitte dt o plac e trailer s o n th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport , an dSkydiv e demand s t o aright t o erec t afacility for

us e a s a n offic e an dfor

repackin g parachute s {see Complaint , ^^I16-11) . Th e City ha s permitte dDeSilva, anon-aeronautica l tenant , t o plac e trailer s o n th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport

for us e a s temporary constructio n office s a s part o f th e constructio n o f

th e nearb y Lincol n Stat e Highwa y 6 5 Bypas s project . Othe r tha n severa l unoccupied , dilapidate d Worl dWar

Il-er abarracks , thes e trailer s are th e onl y "structures " o n th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport . A s soo n a s th e highwa y constructio n i s completed , the y wil l b e removed . Th e onl y utility that run s t o thes e trailer s i s an electri c lin e strun g straigh t froma n electri c pole . Onl y employee s workin g o n th e constructio n projec t hav e acces s t o th e trailers ; the y ar e not ope n t o th e publi c {se e Answer , ^ AF16) . Skydive , whic h propose s t o plac e a n open-to-th e publi c aeronautical structur e o n th e wes t

sid e o f th e Airport , i s no t

similarly-situate dt o DeSilva . Th e City als o ha s legitimat e reason s fo r refusin g t o permi t

Skydiv e t o erec t

abuildin g a

t th e dro p zon e site . Th e Cit y wil l no t allo w th e constructio n o f an y structure , t o b e ope n t o th e public , whic h doe s not

mee t basi c safety an dsanitatio n standard s o r compl y with generally

applicabl e municipa l ordinances . Th e City woul drequir e a n open-to-the-publi c buildin g o n th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport , suc h a s th e support facilit y Skydiv e proposes , t o hav e (at aminimum ) ho t an dcol drunnin g potabl e water , restroo mfacilities , an dsom e kin do f fire suppressio n syste m i n cas e ther e i s afire. Thi s require dinfrastructure doe s no t exis t o n th e wes t

sid e o f th e Airport . {se e Answer , TH

l AF l 8-AF l 9) . Th e FA A ha s repeatedl y hel dthat whil e aeronautica l users ma y hav e aright o f reasonabl e acces s t o an airport , the y hav e n o right t o pic k exactl y wher e th e facilitie s the y us e wil l b elocate da

t th e airport . Se e Monroe . Inc . v . Cit y o f Monroe , Georgia , FA A Docke t No . 16-06-02 , 200 7 WL 1058450 , a

t *8- 9 (Director' s Determination ) (Mar . 30,2007 ) (applyin g thi s principl e t o skydiv e operator) , citin g Glyn Johnso n v . Yazoo Count y an dth e Yazoo Count

y Por t Commission , FA A Docke t No . 16-04-0 6 (Director' s Determination ) (Feb . 9 , 2006) ; JetAway Aviation , Inc . v . Boar do f Count y Commissioners , Montros e County , Colorado , FA A Docke t No . 16-06-0 1 (Director' s Determination ) (Nov . 6,2006) ; Ken t J . Ashto n v . Cit

y o f Concord , VPJ>s

. Docke t No . 16-99-0 9 (Fina l Agenc y Decision ) (Jul y 3 , 2000) . Th e Cit y i s not denyin g Skydiv e "ancillary spac e t o conduc t it s operations. " Id . a

t *9 . Th e City ha s jus t

rejecte dSkydive' s reques t t o locat e it s ancillary spac e a t th e dro p zone . Skydiv e alread y ha s acces s a s asubtenan t t o hangar

spac e at th e Airport

(Answer , t AF15 ) an dSkydiv e ha s no t allege dan dcoul dno t

prov e that

ther e i s n o spac e availabl e o n th e eas t sid e o f th e Airport

t o accommodat e it s needs . Unde r thes e circumstances , Skydiv e ha s n o right unde r th e Gran t Assurance s t o compe l th e City t o allo w Skydiv e t o erec t an y kin do f ancillary support

structur e at

th e dro p zone . A s th e FA A reaffirme di n Monroe , Inc. , "th e grant assurance s onl y requir e reasonabl e accommodation " for " askydivin g operato r

[who ] ma y requir e spac e o n th e airport t o conduc t

briefing s o r

pac k parachutes. " Id . a

t *9 . Skydive' s need s for ancillary support

spac e ca n easil y b e me t

o n th e eas t

sid e o f th e Airport . A s aresult , th e City' s refusal t o allo w Skydiv e t o buil dasupport facility at

th e dro p zon e o n th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport i s no t ground s for

complaint . 2 . Skydiv e ha s n o righ t t o complai n tha t

th e Cit y wil l onl y allo w Skydiv e t o us e th e dro p zon e fo r

parachut e jumping . Skydiv e als o complain s that Sectio n 6 o f

th e Leas e provide s tha t

th e dro p zon e ma y b e use donl y for

th e purpos e o f

landin g skydiver s {see Complaint , ^ 13-15 ; Skydiv e Ex . 19 , § 6) . Skydiv e claim s that

th e dro p zon e site woul dals o b e suitabl e for us e a s ahelicopte r

hove r pa d 1 0an dfor

th e launchin g andlandin g o f ho t ai r balloons . Skydiv e complain s tha t th e City shoul d not b e allowe dt o limi t

th e us e o f

th e dro p zon e t o skydivin g an dargue s that othe r aeronautical tenant s ar e permitte dt o mak e multipl e us e o f thei r lease dpremises . Skydiv e i s not

similarly-situate dt o an y othe r aeronautica l tenan t

becaus e onl y Skydiv e seek s t o operat e o n th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport , wher e it s dro p zon e woul db e th e onl y aeronautica l facility . Al l othe r aeronautica l activitie s - includin g ho t ai r balloonin g an d helicopte r operation s - tak e plac e o n th e eas t sid e o f th e Airport . Skydiv e i s onl y i n th e parachut e jumpin g business , bu t i f Skydiv e seek s t o expan dit s activitie s t o includ e hot ai r balloonin g o r

helicopte r

operations , i t

can easil y b e accommodated , withou t charge , o n th e eas t sid e o f th e Airport

{see Answer , T^

l AF10-AF13) . A s aresult , ther e i s n o basi s for Skydive' s complaint . Se e Monroe , Inc. , 200 7 W L1058450 , a t * 8 (reasonabl e acces s means fo r th e us e o f aeronautica l facilitie s o n th e airport , no t necessaril y th e ability t o leas e - o r us e - particular

spac e o n th e airport) . D . Skydiv e Ha s N o Righ t T o A Long-Ter mLease . Skydiv e complain s that

Sectio n 3 o f

th e propose dLeas e provide s fo r onl y atwo-year term{se e Complaint , ^ 68 ; Skydiv e Ex . 19 , § 3) . Skydiv e argue s that th e City ha s give n long

termlease s t o it s othe r

aeronautica l tenant s an di s obligated , a s aresult , t o giv e th e sam e benefi t t o Skydive . Th e ke y difference , however , i s that Skydiv e wil l no t

b e makin g an y significan t capital investment s i n permanen t improvement s i n th e dro p zone . Th e aeronautica l tenant s that hav e bee n give n long-termlease s b y th e City , i n contrast , hav e al l mad e substantia l capital investment s i n improvement s a t th e Airport , suc h a s hangars , FB O facilitie s o r aircraf t manufactur e an drepai r

facilitie s {see Answer , f

68) .

1 1Th e FA A ha s consistentl y hel dthat i t i s reasonabl e for

a n airport sponso r t o tie th e lengt

h o f lease s t o th e natur e an damoun t o f capital investment s b y it s tenants . Th e FA A ha s lon g recognize dthat

whe n tenant s mak e substantia l investment s i n airport improvements , the y can reasonabl y deman dlong-termlease s s o the y hav e an opportunity t o recove r thei r investment ; tenant s tha t

d o no t finance improvements , however , hav e n o right t o along-termlease . Se e Th e Aviatio n Center , Inc . v . Cit y o f An n Arbor , Michigan , FA A Docke t No . 16-05-01 , 200 5 W L 372271 6 at

*2 1 (Director' s Determination ) (Dec . 16 , 2005) : Ther e ar e significan t

difference s betwee n atwenty-year long-termleas e an da five-year short-termleas e that

hav e abearin g o n financing an dacces s t o capita l for equipmen t

an dfacilities . I t

i s acommo n practic e t o differentiate betwee n fixedbas e operator s havin g capita l investmen t requirement s unde r

long-term lease s an dfixed-base operator s with short-termlease s makin g n o capital investment . Airport s routinel y seek t o initiat e long-termlease s t o provid e tenant s with enoug h tim e t o recove r investe dcapita l o n th e leasehold . Upo n expiratio n o f th e lease , al l facilitie s an dimprovement s can becom e th e propert y o f th e airport sponsor . Se e Wilson Ai r

Cente r v . Memphi s an dShelb y Count y Airpor t Authority , FA A Docke t

No . 16

- 99-1 0 (Final Agenc y Decision ) (Aug . 30 , 2001) , aff'd , Wilso n Ai r Center , LL C v . FAA , 37 2 F.3 d 80 7 (6th Cir . 2004) . Becaus e Skydiv e wil l no t b e makin g an y significan t investmen t

i n th e dro p zone , i t

is , i n fact , similarly-situate di n thi s respec t t o th e tw o non-aeronautica l tenant s o n th e wes t sid e o f th e airport , DeSilvaan dEnerg y Absorptions . Thes e tw o tenant s hav e bee n grante donl y short-term leases : th e DeSilv aleas e fo r temporary constructio n managemen t office s ha s aone-year

term , subjec t t o renewa l (City Ex . 24 , f 3) ; th e Energ y Absorptio n cras h tes t leas e ha s atwo-year

term , subjec t t o renewa l (City Ex . 25 , f | 1-3)

- Moreover , th e Cit y ha s n o recen t experienc e with parachut e jumpin g at

th e Airport

an dreasonabl y propose s onl y ashort-termleas e t o se e ho w wel l th e propose ddro p zon e an dLeas e term s wor k out . Unde r

thes e circumstances , th e City ha s n o federal obligatio n t o giv e Skydiv e along-termlease . 1 2E . Skydive' s Man y Complaint s Abou t Leas e Boilerplat e D o No t Rais e An y Seriou s Federa l Issues . Skydiv e als o complain s abou t avariety o f

boilerplat e term s include db y th e City i n th e propose dLease . Non e o f th e City' s proposals , however , warrant s federal interventio n i n local leas e negotiations .

1 . Annua l Ren t

Increase . Skydiv e complain s that

Sectio n 2 o f

th e Leas e provide s for

fixedannua l 5 % ren t increase s {se

e Complaint , \67 ; Skydiv e Ex . 19 , § 2) . Skydiv e argue s that i t i s entitle dt o th e lowe r CPI-base dren t

adjustment s that

ar e calle dfor

b y th e long-termlease s th e City entere dint o betwee n 197 8 an d200 1 {see Cit y Exs . 15-23) . Th e fixed, 5 % annua l increas e propose db y th e City i s consisten t with it s recen t

practice ; neithe r th e DeSilv ano r

th e Energ y Absorptio n lease s cal l for CPI-base dren t

adjustment s {se

e Cit y Ex . 24 , \2 [DeSilva ] (5 % annual ren t increase) ; Ex . 25 , Amndmt . No . 2 [Energ y Absorption ] (10 % ren t

increas e afte

r thir dyea r o f lease) . Th e City i s no t

forever boun dt o us e CPI-base dren t

adjustmen t

formula s jus t

becaus e i t

use dthe mi n lease s i t

entere dint o man y year s ago . Se e Ric k

Aviation , Inc . v . Peninsul aAirpor t Commission , FA A Docke t No . 16-05-18,200 7 W L 1450398 , a

t *2 7 (Director' s Determination ) (May 8,2007 ) ("Th e Directo r ha s consistenti y conclude dthat

Assuranc e 2 2 doe s no t

requir e asponso r

t o offe r leas e rate s an dterm s that ar e identica l t o othe r

lease s negotiate da

t different point s i n time.") . Skydiv e ha s no t show n that

a5 % ren t adjustmen t

i s inherentl y unreasonabl e o r otherwis e unlawful . 2 . Insuranc e Requirement s Applicabl e t o Skydive . Skydiv e makes variou s complaint s abou t th e insuranc e coverag e th e City ha s require d Skydiv e t o obtai n a s aconditio n o f enterin g int o th e Leas e (se e Complaint , ^ 48-64) . Th e coverage that

th e City demand s o f

Skydive , however , i s eithe r mandate db y municipa l ordinanc e 1 3o r

require db y th e City' s ow n policie s {see Answer , 48 ) an dprovide s n o basi s for afederal complaint . Skydive' s specifi c complaint s regardin g th e insuranc e requirement s are addresse d individuall y below . a . Commercia l Liabilit y Insurance . Skydiv e complain s that

Sectio n 1 1 o f

th e Leas e contain s arequiremen t for $1,000,00 0 i n commercia l general liability ("CGL" ) coverag e {see Complaint , ^ 48-54 ; Skydiv e Ex . 19 , § 11) . Skydiv e assert s tha t

CG L policie s ar e no t

availabl e t o Skydiv e i n th e insuranc e marke t at an y price . Th e City concede s that althoug h Skydiv e doe s no t hav e what

i s calle da"CGL " policy , Skydiv e ha s policie s with different names that

coul dprovid e adequat e genera l liability coverag e {se e Answer , T

f 48) . Th e insuranc e tha t

Skydiv e alread y ha s satisfie s som e o f th e necessary insuranc e requirements , but

th e City woul drequir e th e followin g additiona l insuranc e coverag e befor e enterin g int o th e Lease : Skydive' s aircraf t liability coverag e shoul db e increase dt o $1,000,00 0 pe r occurrence , $2,000,00 0 aggregate , an dshoul db e expande dt o includ e coverag e for bodil y injury , property damage , an dan y damag e t o o r cause db y passengers , an dth e City shoul db e liste da s an additiona l insure d{see Answer , ^ 48) .

b . Automobil e Liabilit y Insurance . Skydiv e complain s that

Sectio n 1 1 o f

th e Leas e contain s arequiremen t for $1,000,00 0 i n automobil e liability insuranc e {see Complaint , ] [ 57 ; Skydiv e Ex . 19 , § 11) . Skydiv e complain s that thi s leve l o f

automobil e insuranc e i s no t availabl e t o businesse s o f Skydive' s size . Whe n Skydiv e obtaine dit s busines s licens e fromth e City , however , Skydiv e offere dproo f tha t Garcia , it s proprietor , i s insurabl e fo r $1,000,00 0 i n automobil e liability coverag e {see Answer , \48 ; City Ex . 14) . Thi s coverage limi t i s require db y City Ordinanc e {se e Cit y Ex . 3) . I f

Skydiv e

1 4conclusivel y demonsfrate s that i t caimo t obtai n th e require dpolicy , however , th e Cit y wil l accep t lowe r limit s o f coverage . 3 . Insuranc e Coverag e fo r Subcontractors . Skydiv e complain s that

Sectio n 1 1 o f

th e Leas e require s that

an y o f it s subconfractor s operatin g o n th e dro p zon e obtai n th e sam e leve l o f coverag e a s Skydiv e mus t hav e {se e Complaint , \55 ; Skydiv e Ex . 19 , § 11) . I n it s complaint , Skydiv e state s tha t i t woul dus e subconfractor s for

tw o purposes : t o operat e skydivin g flights an dt o repac k chutes betwee n drop s (Complaint , \55) . Thes e kind s o f service s creat e th e sam e kind s o f risks a s Skydive' s ow n operation s an dwarran t comparabl e insuranc e coverage . Both th e City' s ow n insuranc e provide r an dth e applicabl e municipa l ordinanc e mandat e thi s coverag e {se e Answer , T

j 55) . Ther e i s nothin g unreasonabl e o r discriminatory abou t

th e City' s proposa l that

Skydive' s subconfractor s prov e that

the y carry th e sam e coverag e that Skydiv e mus t

have . 4 . Payment s of

City' s Insuranc e Premiums . Skydiv e complain s that

Sectio n 1 1 o f

th e Leas e require s tha t

Skydiv e pa y for

an y increas e i n th e City' s ow n insuranc e cost s that i s attributabl e t o Skydive' s parachut e jumpin g activitie s at

th e Airport

{se e Complaint , fT

J 61-64 ; Skydiv e Ex . 19 , § 11) . Th e City' s ow n liability polic y ha s askydivin g exclusio n {se e Answer , \48) . T o obtai n reasonabl e coverag e t o protec t th e City fromclaim s arisin g ou t o f Skydive' s activities , th e City woul dhav e t o purchas e additiona l coverag e throug h ane w polic y that i t woul dno t

otherwis e hav e {see Answer , ^ 48) . Ther e i s nothin g unreasonabl e o r discriminatory abou t

th e City' s

1 5proposa l that Skydiv e bear

th e incrementa l cost s associate dwith th e City' s nee dt o procur e skydivin g coverage. '

5 . Indemnification . Skydiv e complain s that

Section s 1 3 an d1 4 o f

th e Leas e are unjustl y discriminatory becaus e the y requir e Skydiv e t o indenmif y th e City , but

th e City ha s no t

offere dt o indemnif

y Skydiv e {se

e Complaint , ^ 79-80 ; Skydiv e Ex . 19 , § § 1 3 & 14) . A s th e owne r o f th e Airport , th e City ha s th e proprietary right t o deman dindemnificationyro w it s tenants . Th e City ha s no t provide dindemnificatio n t o an y o f it s existin g aeronautica l tenant s i n thei r lease s {se

e City Exs . 15-25) . Th e City ha s n o federal obligatio n t o offe r t o indemnif

y Skydiv e before i t

can requir e Skydiv e t o indemnif y th e City . 6 . Conflictin g Leas e Terms . Skydiv e complain s that

Sectio n 5 o f

th e Lease , whic h specificall y describe s th e FA A and TRACO N safety requirement s for skydivin g a

t th e Airport , ma y conflic t with Sectio n 8 o f

th e Lease , whic h require s Skydiv e t o compl y wit h al l applicabl e laws , i f

th e FA A o r

TRACO N someday change s th e rules , regulation s o r safet y requirement s governin g Skydive' s activitie s a t th e Airport

{see Complaint , ^ 71 ; Skydiv e Ex . 19 , § § 5 & 8) . I n callin g ou t Skydive' s obligatio n t o compl y with both (a ) th e specifi c FA A an dTRACO N safet y requirement s that

are currentl y i n effec t an d(b ) applicabl e law a s i t may b e amende dfromtim e t o time , i t wa s neve r

th e City' s inten t (a s insinuate db y Skydive ) t o frap Skydiv e b y makin g i t impossibl e for

Skydiv e t o compl y with it s Lease . T o avoi ddoubt , th e Cit y woul db e happ y t o insert wordin g i n th e Leas e t o mak e

' Whe n Energ y Absorption s propose dt o conduc t cras h test s a t

th e Airport , th e Cit y inserte dasimila r cost recovery claus e i n Energ y Absorption' s Leas e (se e City Ex . 25 , ^ 8.1) . A s it turne dout , th e Cit y di dno t incu r an y incrementa l insuranc e cost s a s aresul t o f Energ y Absorption' s activitie s an dha dn o nee dt o invoke thi s provisio n (5e e Answer , 1161) .

1 6explici t

that i t i s Skydive' s obligatio n t o compl y with applicabl e FA A an dTRACO N safet y requirement s "a s the y ma y b e amende dfromtim e t o time " durin g th e termo f th e Lease . 7 . Tim e i s o f

th e Essence . Skydiv e complain s that

Sectio n 2 5 o f

th e Leas e makes "tim e o f th e essence " for

Skydiv e t o perfor mal l o f it s obligation s unde r

th e Lease , bu t

that tim e i s no t

o f th e essenc e for

th e City t o performit s obligation s unde r th e Leas e {see Complaint , f 81 ; Skydiv e Ex . 19 , § 25) . Skydiv e ha s no t show n tha t

th e Cit y ha s an y federal obligatio n t o mak e "tim e o f th e essence " amutua l requiremen t

i n it s leases . 8 . "Insulting " Recitals . Skydiv e als o complain s tha t som e o f th e Recital s a

t th e beginnin g o f

th e Leas e ar e "insulting " t o Skydiv e and , accordin g t o Skydive , unfairl y impug n skydivin g {see Complaint , TfT f 65-66) . Skydiv e ha s no t

shown , however , ho w an y o f thes e non-bindin g recital s migh t actuall y affec t

it s operation s o r

impai r an y right protecte db y federal law . Th e City i s prepared , however , t o conside r

rewordin g th e recital s t o eliminat e thi s proble mi f i t woul dresolv e th e presen t dispute . III . TH E CIT Y HA S NO T IMPOSE D AN Y "UNATTAINABLE " CONDITION S AN D THA T CLAI M I S MOOT . Skydiv e complain s that

th e City ha s place dunattainabl e condition s o n th e Leas e i n violatio n o f

FA A Orde r

5190.6A , § 3-12 , Administratio n o f Policy ; 4 9 U.S.C . § § 4710 7 an d 40103(e) ; an d"th e gran t

agreements " {see Complaint , I f 51) . Skydive' s clai mo f

unattainabl e condition s i s base dentirel y o n it s complaint s abou t tw o insuranc e requirement s containe di n th e propose dLease : th e requiremen t fo r CG Lcoverage an dth e requiremen t fo r $1,000,00 0 i n automobil e liability coverage {see abov e Pt . n.E.2) .

1 7With respec t t o CG L coverage : sinc e Skydiv e filedit s Complaint , th e Cit y ha s determine dthat

aCG Lpolic y wil l no t

b e required , provide dthat Skydiv e ha s aircraf

t liability coverag e with limit s o f

$1,000,00 0 pe r

occurrence , $2,000,00 0 aggregate , that include s coverag e for bodil y injury , property damage , an dan y damag e t o o r cause db y passengers , an dlist s th e Cit y a s a n additiona l insured . Th e City ha s n o reaso n t o believ e that thi s require dcoverag e i s unavailabl e t o Skydiv e i n th e insuranc e market ; Skydiv e alread y ha s an aircraf t liability polic y wit h limit s o f

$300,00 0 pe r

occurrenc e {see Answer , ^ 48) . Wit h respec t t o automobil e liability coverage : ther e i s n o reaso n t o believ e that Skydiv e coul dprov e that

th e require d$1,000,00 0 polic y i s unattainable , sinc e Skydiv e showe dthat Garci awas insurabl e fo

r suc h apolic y whe n i t

obtaine dit s busines s licens e fromth e Cit y (se e Answer , f 48 ; City Ex . 14) . However , i f Skydiv e conclusivel y demonsfrate s that i t n o longer can obtai n thi s coverage , th e City wil l accep t lowe r polic y limits . An y complain t

that Skydiv e ma y hav e ha do n th e basi s o f thes e insuranc e requirement s i s no w moo t becaus e th e Cit y ha s give n u p th e CG Lrequiremen t an dha s agreed , i f

necessary , t o accep t lowe r coverag e limit s o n Skydive' s automobil e liability policy . Th e FA A should , therefore , dismis s thi s clai mb y Skydive . A s th e FA A ha s observed :

. . . i n addressin g allegation s o f noncompliance , th e FA A wil l mak e a determinatio n a s t o whethe r an airport

sponso r i s currentl y i n complianc e with th e applicabl e federal obligations . Consequently , th e FA A wil l conside r th e successfu l actio n b y th e airport t o cur e an y allege do r

potentia l pas t

violatio n o f applicatio n federal obligation[s ] t o b e ground s fo r dismissa l o f

suc h allegations . Hil l Air, 200 6 W L325373 , a t *2 4 (Jan . 31 , 2006 ) (Recor do f Decision ) (emphasi s added) . Se e Jimsai r Aviatio n Services , Inc . v . Sa n Dieg o Count

y Regiona l Airpor t

Authority , 200 7 W L 2405821 , at

*3 8 (Apri l 12,2007 ) (Director' s Determination) .

1 8IV . SKYDIVE' S "EXCLUSIV E RIGHTS " CLAI M HA S N O INDEPENDEN T

SIGNIFICANCE . Skydive' s "exclusiv e rights" clai munde r 4 9 U.S.C . § 40103(e ) i s predicate do n th e theory tha t

th e City ha s grante dunlawfu l "exclusiv e rights" b y imposin g unjustl y discriminatory o r xmattainabl e condition s i n th e Leas e {see Complaint , ^ 44-46) . Skydiv e apparenti y relie s upo n th e FAA' s positio n that a n unjusti y discriminatory applicatio n o f airport standard s ma y constitut e a"constructive " gran t o f an unlawfu l exclusiv e right. Se e FA A Orde r 5190. 1 A , ^1 1 .c ; Ashton , 200 0 W L 138788 7 at *6 . Skydive' s complain t makes plai n tha t

it s exclusiv e rights clai mi s derivativ e o f an ddepend s upo n it s unjus t discriminatio n claim . I t

ha s n o independen t

significance . Skydiv e posit s that th e City ha s grante dunlawfii l exclusiv e rights b y offerin g mor e favorabl e leas e term s t o othe r aeronautica l tenant s tha n i t offere dt o Skydive . I f th e FA A finds, a s i t

should , tha t

th e City' s propose dLeas e term s ar e no t unjustl y discriminatory , th e FA A mus t

rejec t Skydive' s exclusiv e rights claim.' °

' " Eve n i f

th e FA A were t o findmeri t i n Skydive' s unjus t

discriminatio n claim , ther e woul db e n o reaso n fo r th e FA A t o conside r

th e "exclusiv e rights" issue . Se e Skydiv e Paris , Inc. , 200 6 W L 247124 , at *1 6 (i n vie w o f

th e findin g o n unjus t

discrimination , i t

wa s "unnecessary t o conside r th e relate dallegatio n regardin g exclusiv e rights").

1 9

### Conclusion .

Fo r al l of thes e reasons , the FA

A shoulddismis s Skydive' s Complain t wit h prejudice . Respecjfi^ll

y submitted .

Septembe r 21,200 9 ScoVCV . Lewi s CJmstin e M.lGrifil n PERSO N <ffi^i^IGE RLL

P 

### On e Cana l Park , Suit

e 200 Cambridge , M

A 0214 1 T : 617.621.6500 F : 617.621.666 0 slewis@andersonkreiger . co m cgriffin@andersonkreiger.com Counse l fo r Responden

t

2 0CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y i n accordanc e with 1 4 CF R§ 16.15(a ) that toda y I serve dth e foregoin g Memorandu mi n Support o f Respondent' s Motio n t o Dismis s o n th e followin g person s at th e followin g addresse s b y Federa l Express : Richar dJ . Durde n Attorne y a

t La w 2798 7 Richmon dHil l Roa d Conifer , C O 8043 3 Offic e o f Chie f Counsel , Attention : FA A Part 1 6 Airport

Proceeding s Docke t AGC-61 0 FEDERAL AVL\TIO N ADMINISTRATIO N 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Date dthi s 21' * da y o f

September , 200 9

2 1