^'•*^ . Iv^^^'t * ] : '' . ^ ' |jna-A-. - 15.CJ 

### ^rf-ARTMEN T O F ' ;)'^f$pPQ| ^ U.S . DEPARTMEN T OFTRANSPORTATION " Th b ^dndYhdi e Chief

Administrativ e La

w Judg e Ronnie A. Y^^^

r a: C !'!:•' / ! ' 3 P | : u s 1 I n th e matte

r of BRENDA N AIRWAYS , LLC , d^D/ aUSA300 0 Airline s

Responden

t DM S No. : FAA-2009-003 2 FA A Docke t No. : CP09EA0007 FA A Cas e No. : 2008EA17003 8 RESPONDENT' S ANSWE RT O COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N T O STRIKE TH E RESPONDENT' S REPL Y T O MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR Y JUDGMEN T o r

DECISIO N an d MOTIO N T O DISMIS S 91.13(a) AMENDMENT T O COMPLAIN T Conie s no w th e Respondent , Brenda n Airways , LL

C d/b/ aU S A 3 00 0 Airline s [hereinafte r "USA3000" ] an

d ANSWERS th e Complainant' s MOTION TO STRIK E tha t it served o n Novembe

r 5 , 2010 . 

## I . Argumen t A , Th e FAA' s Procedura l Rule s Ar e No t Exclusiv e The Administrator

claim s tha

t 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.16(a

) an d (h ) stat e tha t th e exclusiv e sourc e of procedure s i s foun

d in Subpar

t G . Motio n to Strik

e a t 2 . Thi s i s simply false . Ther e i s n o statemen

t concernin g th e exclusiv e sourc e o f procedure s in eithe

r o f thos e subsections . Se

e 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.16(a

) an d (h) . The federa l court s hav e neve

r hel d tha t federa l statement s o f

procedur e ar e exclusiv e . I

n fact , fo r ove r tw o hvmdre

d years . Congres s ha s recognize d tha t federl ala w i s incomplete , and Congres s ha s specified tha t federa l court s wil l borro w stat

e law s whe

n federa l la w doe s no t

addres s th e issu e on point . 2 8 U.S.C . § 1652 . I t i s anor mof stat e la w tha t th e moving part

y i n siunmar

y judgment

ma y respond to th e new theorie s raise d b y th e non-movin g party .

RESPONDENT' S ANSWE RTO TH E MOTIO N TO STRIK E Pag e 1 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P

C an d th e La w Office s o f

Jason A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW, Suit

e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

### B . Forbiddin g Replie s i n Dispositiv e Motion s Woul d Permi t th e Non-Movin g Part y a n Unfai r Advantag e Th e traditiona

l model fo r dispositiv e motion s is : • th e movin g part

y files adispositiv e motion , • th e non-movin g part

y files a n answe r to th e dispositiv e motion , and • th e movin g part

y files areply to th e dispositiv e answer . The reaso n fo

r th e structur

e of thi s model i s becaus e th e movin g part y bear s th e burde n o f persuasio n in th e motion , and it i s possibl e (an

d likely ) tha

t th e non-movin g part y wil l rais e anovel objectio n to th e dispositiv e motion . Such lega l theorie s ofte

n def y prior discovery , becaus e discover y i s limite d t

o facts and no t

lega l theories . I f th e non-movin g part

y raise s apreviously-undisclose d lega l objectio n to th e dispositiv e motion , then th e moving part y i s require d to respond to it o r ris k adefaul t judgment on th e theory . Thus , th e reply brief i s th e standar

d mechanis muse d to permit th e moving part

y to respond . Thi s i s als o th e reaso n tha t th e scop e of

th e reply brie f

i s generally limite d only to matter s addresse d in th e non-movin g party' s answer . It woul d no t hav e been reasonabl e fo

r US A 300 0 t

o anticipat e tha t th e Administrator

woul d argu e tha

t a91. 7 allegatio n ha s differen t elements , dependin g o n th e part y agains t whomth e charg e i s raised . Suc h a n allegatio n i s contrar

y t o th e traditiona

l notio n of star e decisis . Thus , it

woul d no t hav e been reasonabl e fo

r US A 300 0 t o addres s suc h aclaimi n it s initia

l motio n (among th e myria

d othe r speciou s claim s tha

t coul d b e raised) . Nonetheless , US A 3000 mus t respond t o thi s novel claim , o

r ris k a n advers e judgmen t in favo r of th e Administrator

fo r failur e to respond . C . N o Surrepl y i s Permitte d Th e Administrator

use s th e Motio n t

o Strik e a s avehicl e to file asurreply to th e Reply . Th e Administrator

ha s no t sough t permissio n to file asurreply . Instead , th e Administrator

insist s o n bein g permitte d to respond to th e Repl y i f th e Reply i s no t stricken . Motio n to Strik

e a t 3 (explainin g tha

t th e Administrator

i s respondin g to th e RESPONDENT' S ANSWE RTO TH E MOTIO N T O Washington Aviation Group , P C an d the STRIK E La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstei

n Page 2 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW, Suit

e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6Reply) ; se e Motio n t o Strik e a t 3- 4 (tex t o f th e Administrator' s surreply) . Thi s i s a surreply . Th e Administrato r

admit s tha t

th e Repl y wa s limite d i n scop e t o th e matter s raise d b y th e Administrato r

i n th e Answer . Answe r

at 3 . Becaus e ther e ar e n o ne w issue s rasie d i n th e Reply , th e Administarto r shoul d not

b e permitte d t o file asurreply . 

### II . Conclusio n Th e Administrato r

claime d tha t

US A 300 0 violate d 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.7 . Suc h a violatio n ha s alway s carrie d aknowledg e element . N o previou s cas e ha s dispute d tha t knowledg e i s an element . Fo r th e first time , i n hi s Answe r

t o th e Motio n for

Summary Judgment , th e Administrato r raise s th e clai mtha t

knowledg e i s no t

a n elemen t

o f 91. 7 whe n asectio n 91. 7 allegatio n i s raise d agains t certai n partie s (th e exac t scop e o f whe n knowledg e i s o r

i s not a n elemen t

o f 91. 7 claim s woul d b e amyster y t o b e deduce d fo r eac h individua l responden t imde r th e government' s theory) . A s amatte r o f fundamenta l fairness , US A 300 0 i s entitle d t o offer arespons e t o thi s nove l theory . Th e traditiona l structur e o f dispositiv e motion s - i n whic h th e movin g party i s entitle d t o aRepl y brie f

t o respon d t o issue s raise d for th e first tim e i n th e Answe r

t o th e Motio n - permit s afai r

opportunit y t o respon d t o nove l lega l theories . I f th e Court

finds tha t repl y brief

s ar e not i n order , the n i t

woul d b e possibl e for

anon-movan t

t o alway s defea t adispositiv e motio n b y simpl y raisin g ane w lega l theory , tha t th e movan t

ha d no t anticipated . N o matte r

ho w specious , th e ne w lega l theor y woul d stan d unoppose d i n suc h ascenario . Thi s sort o f proces s woul d mak e dispositiv e motion s entirel y ineffectiv e becaus e i t woul d no t

b e possibl e t o completel y addres s argument s tha t coul d no t

b e supported ; an d matter s tha t

shoul d no t

g o forwar d t o tria l coul d nonetheles s g o t o tria l o n speciou s arguments . Thi s woul d b e awast e o f judicia l resources . US A 300 0 therefor e ask s tha t th e Administrativ e La w Judg e den y th e FAA' s Motio n t o Strike , an d gran t US A 3000' s Motion for Summary Judgment . T o th e exten t RESPONDENT' S ANSWE RTO TH E MOTIO N TO Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an d the STRIK E La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstein Page 3 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW, Suit

e 50 3 Washington , D

C 20007 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

### tha

t the Motio n to Strik

e i s really acleverly-camouflaged surreply , US A 3000 ask s tha t th e Administrator' s surreply b e set-aside . RESPECTFULL

Y SUBMITTE

D thi s 7t h da y of November , 2010 . WASHINGTO

N AVIATION GROUP , PC AN D TH E LA W OFFICES O F JASON A DICKSTEI N

Jaso n Dickstein Washingto n Aviatio n Group , PC an

d th e La w Office s of

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsin Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 20007 Tel : (202 ) 628-677 6 Attorne y fo r Responden

t Brenda n Airways , LLC d/b/

aUSA300 0 Airline s

RESPONDENT' S ANSWE RTO TH E MOTIO N T O Washington Aviatio n Group , P C an d the STRIK E La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstei

n Page 4 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW, Suit

e 50 3 Washmgton , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6" ^ f*"- ^ z:'^- ; BEFOR E TH E U S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N The Honorabl e Chie f

Administrativ e La w Judg e Ronni e A . YQ^^ r I n th e matte r

o f BRENDA N AIRWAYS , LLC , d^/ aUSA300 0 Airline s

Responden t DM S No. : FAA-2009-003 5

FA A Docke t

No. : CP09EA000 7 FA A Cas e No. : 2008EA17003 8 CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E •K \

Th e undersigne d hereb y certifie s tha t sh e cause d th e attache d

• RESPONDENT' S ANSWE RT O COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N T O STRIK E TH E RESPONDENT' S REPL Y T O MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR Y JUDGMEN T o r DECISIO N an d MOTIO N T O DISMIS S 91.13(a ) AMENDMEN T T O COMPLAIN T t o b e filed at

th e addresse s liste d belo w b y two-da y FedE x service , o n th e dat e indicate d below . Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W100 0 Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 An d t o b e serve d o n th e person s a t th e addresse s liste d belo w b y th e sam e metho d a s th e filing method , o n th e dat e indicate d below . Davi d M . Cohen , Attorne y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o f th e Regiona l Coimsel , EAL- 7 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 Tel : (718 ) 553-327 0 Fax:(718)995-569 9 Th e Honorabl e Roimi e A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 Roo mEl2-32 0 U S Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Tel : (202 ) 366-214 2 Fax : (202 ) 366-753 6

Katt Stanle y Novembers . 201 0 Dat e CERTIFICAT

E O F SERVIC E Washington Aviation Group , P C an d th e La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 20007 • Tel : 202-628-677 6