10/22/2014 05:45 4252271007 

DAVJD F. SHAYNE 

FAA OFFICE OF REGIONAL CoUNSEL 

1601 LIND AVE., SW 

RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 

TELEPHONE: (425) 227-2165 

FACSIMILE: (425) 227-1007 

ANM7 

UNITED TATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of: 

AA DOCKET NO. FAA 2014-0116 Joseph Maridon, Sr. 

Judge Richard Goodwin 

PAGE 02/09 

COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR 1ARTIAL DECISION ISUMMARY JUDGMENTI 

Complainant moves for Summary Judgment, pursuant to the provisions of 14 C.F.R. Section 

13 .218(±)(5) and Rule 56 of the Federal es of Civil Procedure (FRCP), since, after considering the 

pleadings and the attached declarations andlevidence, it should be clear that there is no genuine issue as 

to the mate.rial fucts alleged and discussed b~low, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is 

entitled to a judgment in this case as a matJr oflaw as to the issue of whether the violation was i 

committed as alleged. 

Factual background 

Respondent owned or leased a han er at the North Las Vegas airport. Aircraft belonging to an. 

airline that conducted regular operations oJ of that airport, Vision Airlines, often traversed the apron 

nelct to his hanger enroute to the runway. Rlspondent did not like the noise these aircraft produce and 

IDd reqM<ol ""'-~ "" w = t\mt f 

Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision 

(Summary Judgment) 

FAA Dockct No. 2014~116 

Page I ofS 

DAVID F. SHAYNE, FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2165; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
10/22/2014 05:45 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 03/09 

On September 29, 2012, Respondent pulled hls truck out and parked in the pathway of a 

taxiing aircraft, forcing the aircraft to stop and wait until County personnel persuaded Respondent to 

move the truck. 

On May 29, 2013, the FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty (NPCP) which 

alleged the following: 

1. On or about September 29, 2012, at approximately 1430 local time, Respondent parked his 

vehicle on an active taxiway ofthe North Las Vegas Airport (KVGT), Las Vegas, Nevada. 

2. Respondent's parked vehicle prevented an operating Vision Airlines' aircraft from taxing 

for take-off 

3. Respondent knew his parked vehicl.e would interfere with the taxiing of the aircraft. 

4. Respondent's parked vehide interfered with the flight crewmembers' performance of their 

duties aboard that aircraft. 

By reason of the foregoing circumstances, Respondent violated Section 91,11 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations), which states that no person 

may interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an 

aircraft being operated. 

On May 5, 2014, Complainant filed the Complaint sub judice containing the identical language. 

Respondent filed aMotion to Dismiss, alleging that the cited regulation, 14 C.FR 91.11, is 

inapplicable to him under these facts; that the F M lacks subject matter jurisdiction; and that it is 

estopped from. prosecuting this enforcement. The gravamen of his argument was that, since he never 

came into physical contact with the aircraft or its crew, he could not have "interfered" with the 

crewmembers as that term is used in 14 C.FR 91.11. He also argued that the FM has no subject 

matter jurisdiction because it has no authority to regulate his use of a motor vehicle on this particular 

airport. 

Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision 

(Summary Judgment) 

FAA Docket No. 20!4-0ll6 

Page 2 of8 

. DAVID F. SHAYNE, FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2165; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
10/22/2014 05:45 4252271007 ANH7 PAGE 04/09 

Complainant responded to the motion and argued Congress vested in the FAA broad authority 

to regulate the operati,on of aircraft; and the fact Respondent used "a motor vehicle as the 

instmmentality does not remove the action from this court's jurisdiction,'' Complainant replied that, 

arguendo, if there is any ambiguity in 14 C.FR 91,11 that requires interpretation, the Adjudicator 

should defer to FAA interpretation of its own regulations, relying in part on a recent legal interpretation 

that opined persons who point lasers at pilots violate 14 CFR 9U 1 even though they are located 

outside the aircraft, Intemretation Issu_e_q to Dennis RQb_~rts, 2011 WL 2313603 (D. 0. T), 

The ALJ denied the Respondent's Motion without prejudice. 

The parties then exchanged discovery, and this Motion for Summary Judgment follows. 

All Releyant Factual Allegations Are Admitted 

In response to Complainant's Request for Admission One, Respondent stated the following: 

"Respondent Admits parking a vehicle with the hood up and hazard lights flashing in the vicinity of 

his hangar on the North Las Vegas Airport preventing an aircraft from proceeding past his hanger. 

Respondent denies blocking the forward motion of the aircraft since it was able to proceed 

forward, and alter its course and North Las Vegas airport rules do not give aircraft on the ground 

the right of way and the aircraft had the obligation to see and avoid any hazards. Airport Manager 

was previously informed of but did not resolve the taxi, and noise issues." 

In response to Complainant's Request for Admission Two, Respondent stated the following: 

"Respondent admits telling Vincent Rivas an airport employee that respondent parked his 

truck in front of the aircraft to protest the overly noisy aircraft travelling in the area directly 

adjacent to Respondent's hangar after the airport manager had been notified of the noise and 

taxi issues. North Las Vegas Airport Rules do not give aircraft on the ground the right of way 

and the aircraft had the obligation to see and avoid potential hazards. Airport Manager was 

previously informed of, but did not resolve the taxi, and noise issues," 

Thus, Respondent admits that he I) used a vehicle to block the path of an on-coming 

aircraft taxiing towards an active runway for take-off; and 2) he did so purposefully. 

Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision 

(Summary Ju(!gment) 

FAA Docket No, 2014-0il6 

Page 3 of8 

DAVID F. SFJAYNE,FAAATTORNEY 

TEL; (425) 227-2165; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
10/22/2014 05:45 4252271007 ANM7 

For the reasons that follow, Complaint asks for partial SU!IlirulJY judgment on factual 

allegations in the Complaint, leaving only the sanction for adjudication. 

ARGUMENT AND BASIS FOR REQUESTED RELIEF 

A. Standard of Review 

PAGE 05/09 

AMotion for Decision pursuant to§ 13.218(£)(2) is, for all intents and purposes, the same as a 

Motion for Summary Judgment under l'RCP 56 and is reviewed under the same standard. In Re tl\t; 

Matter ofSs:_ott McDougall, Doc. CP89EA0316 at 4 (1990). Motions for Summary Judgment may be 

decided on admissible evidence that is outside ofthe pleadings, normally presented in declarations or 

affidavits. In re the Matter of Horizon ,8,lt!ndustries, FAA Order No. 96-24 (1996). All inferences in 

the evidence must be drawn in favor of the non-moving party. If the court detennines that the nonmoving party demonstrates, through putatively admissible evidence that some genuine clispute of fact 

exists, then the motion should be denied. McDolJgall. 

It: on the other hand, the wurt determines no genuine issues offact exist and the outstanding 

legal issues are resolved in favor of the moving party's position, then the moving party is entitled to a 

judgment on any such issue as a matter oflaw. I d. 

In this case, Respondent has not raised any inference of a significant factual dispute. Rather, he 

contends that 14 C.F.R. 91.11 is inapplicable to these facts for the reasons he presented in his Motion 

to Dismiss. The only dispute remaining for this tribunal to adjudicate is a purely legal one; the meaning 

and application ofl4 C.P.R. 9l.ll. 

As eKplained previously and below, this tnbunaJ should find that 14 C.F.R. 91.11 applies to 

Respondent's readily-admitted conduct and that he is subject to sanction for that conduct. 

Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision 

(Summary Judgment) 

FAA Docket No. 2014-0116 

Page 4 of8 

DAVID F. SHAYNE, FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2165; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
10/22/2014 05:45 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 05/09 

B. The facts establish a violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.11 

Complainant hereby incorporates the arguments it presented in its above-referenced Opposition 

to Motion to Dismiss ("Opposition") and adds the following: Regarding the jurisdiction of the FM to 

penalize the Respondent under the facts of this case, courts have long recognized the broad authority 

of the FAA to promulgate and enforce regulations in the promotion of"aircraft safety." F M v. Landy, 

705 F.2d 624, 628 (2nd Cir. 1983). Courts have recognized this authority extends to the protection of 

personnel who operate aircraft (i.e., "crewmembers"). Jl S. v. Kilpatrick, 759 F.2d !250, 1252 (5"' Cir 

1985). Nor is its authority limited to persons physically located aboard an aircraft: "The J.lM and its 

employees are entrusted with assuring air safety in a way that will protect everyone who flies and 

everyone on the ground as well." Rouodtr.~e v. U.S., 40 F.3d 1036, 1039 (9!h Cir, 1994) (Emphasis 

added). 

Any act that interferes with the safe operation of aU. S_ -registered aircraft is subject to F M 

jurisdictional authority, even if the act in question occurs outside of the international boundaries of the 

United States. Landy, jg, It would be absurd for that authority to be limited simply because the act in 

question took place in or on an airport over which some other governmental unit also may exercise its 

authority, and Respondent indeed fails to cite to any relevant legal authority in support ofllis 

argument. 1 

As for his argument that 14 C.F.R. 9111 cannot apply to the actions of an individual who does 

not engage in. any actual physical contact 'With a crewmember or the aircraft itself, he likewise fails to 

' Respondent's reference to ACJ50/5210-20 is inapposite. Whether the FAA or a local airport authority has 

primary respon.sibility for ground vehicular traffic is irrelevant to the issue presented in this case because the 

instrumentality Respondent chose to obstruct forward movement of the aircraft is incidental .. he could !lave used 

any number of objects-or no object at all, just his body-the violation would essentially be the same, Moreover, 

Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision 

(Summary Judgment) 

FAA Docket No, 2014-0116 

Page 5 of8 

DAVJDF. SHAYNE,l:AAATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2165; FAX: (425) 227·1007 
10/22/2014 05:45 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 07/09 

cite to any relevant legal authority to support his limiting construction of the regulation. Indeed, there 

are numerous examples of individuals sanction under 14 C.F.R. 121.5802 who engaged in no actual 

physical contact with crewmembers. See, e.g., In re Wallesa, FAA Order No. 2013-2(2013); In re 

Abrams FAA Order. 2008-2 (2008). The plain language of the regulation simply provides that a J)§!:S_O);! 

who interferes with a crewmember is subject to the regulation, none ofRespondent's suggested 

limitations are apparent in the plain language of the regulation See City of hlip,gton v. F. C. G., 133 S. 

Ct. 1863, 1874-75 (2013) (cited in "Opposition" for the proposition that courts should defer to an 

agency's interpretation of its own regulations; but likewise provides that unambiguous regulations are 

to be applied as plainly stated). As argued in its "Opposition" Complainant does not concede that 14 

C.F.R 91.11 is ambiguous so as to be subject to interpretation, but, if)t is, this tribunal should deferto 

the FAA's interpretation as argued herein. 

For these reasons, partial summary judgment should be gnanted as to Respondent's liability 

under 14 C .F .R. 91.11. 

CONCLUSION 

Respondent readily admits the pertinent facts necessary to establish the violation at issue, There 

is no reason to hold a full-blown evidentiary hearing in this case. Respondent has argued the regulation 

at issue does not apply to the conduct at issue. He !s free to maintain that position to have that question 

resolved as the matter oflaw that it is. Complainant agrees his argument should be addressed, but 

Advisory Circulars are not binding legal instntments, they are merely guidance, as this one clearly states in its "purpose.'' 

2 14 C_F_R. 121.580 states in language nearly identical to 14 C.F.R 91.11: "No person may assault, threaten, 

intimidate. or interfere with a crewmemb<:r in the pet:totroance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this part_" 

Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision 

(Summary Judgment) 

FAA Docket No_ 20J4,0IJ6 

Page 6 of8 

DA v1D F. SHAYNE, FAA A'l"TORNEY 

TEL; (425) 227-2165; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
10/22/2014 05:45 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 08/09 

firmly rejected. The plain language of the regulation, legal precedent and FAA's own interpretations 

establish clearly the conduct in this case falls under the purview of the regulation. 

Accordingly, Complainant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment should be granted. 

Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of October, 2014. 

Complainant's Motion for Partial Decisi.on 

(Summary Judgment) 

FAA Docket No. 2014-0116 

Page 7 of8 

DA VJD F. SHAYNE, FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-:1.165; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
10/22/2014 05:45 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 09/09 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certi:ty that the foregoing Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision (Summary Judgment) 

has been served via Facsimile and/or electronic mail this date, to the following: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO 

Fax: (202) 493-5142 

Ron. Richard C. Goodwin. 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-230 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Fax: (202) 366-7536 

Joseph R. Maridon, Jr. 

Respondent's Counsel 

6130 Elton Ave 

Las Vegas, NV 89107 

Fax; (702) 410-6396 

Walter L. Ayers 

Respondent's Counsel 

13435 North Whitehouse Court 

Spokane, W A 99208 

Walter_ ayers@msn. com 

Dated October 22, 2014. 

T ri E Kirk 

Office ofRegional Counsel (ANM-7) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, WA 98057 

TEL: (425) 227-2160 

Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision. 

(Summary Judgment) 

FAA Docket No. 2014-0116 

Page 8 of8 

DAVID F. SHAYNE,FAAATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2165; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
10/22/2014 05:45 4252271007 ANM7 

FACSIMILE MESSAGE 

DAVID F. SHAYNE 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRA TJON 

OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL 

ANM-7 

1601 LIND AVENUE S.W. 

RENTON, WASlliNGTON 98057 

PAGE 01/09 

The information contained in this facsimile message is legally privileged and confidential 

information and is intended only for the use of the individual named on this cover sheet 

If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 

use, dissemination, distribution, or copy of this facsimile is strictly prohibited. If you 

have received this facsimile in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 

425-227-2007. 

DATE: 

TO; 

FAX NO.: 

October 22, 2014 

Hearing Docket Clerk 

(202) 493-5142 

NO. PAGES: 

FROM: 

FAX NO.: 

PHONE NO.: PHONE NO.: 

9 including cover 

David F. Shayne 

425-227-1007 

RE: Joseph Email: _j Maridon 

FAA 2014-0166 -----------·-··