JEFFREY M. HARPER

FAA OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL

1601 LIND AVE., SW

RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057

TELEPHONE: (425) 227-2161

FACSIMILE: (425) 227-1007

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

In the Matter of:

Air Medical Resource Group, Inc.

DMS No. FAA-2014-0552

FAA Case No. 2014NM070012

Honorable Richard C. Goodwin

MOTION TO DEEM ALLEGATIONS ADMITTED

OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,

STRIKE RESPONDENT’S ANSWER

Complainant moves the Court to deem certain allegations in its Complaint as admitted. 

14 C.F.R. §§ 13.209(e)⇒ and (f). In the alternative, Complainant moves the Court to 

strike Respondent’s Answer. 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.218(f)(4).⇒

1. Statement of Facts

Respondent has been authorized by the Administrator to conduct operations as an air 

carrier, and conducts those operations pursuant to Part 135 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations. Complaint ¶ II.1; Answer ¶ II.1.

On August 26, 2014, the Complaint in this case was served on Respondent. Exhibits 1⇒

and 2.

⇒ Less than 26 hours later, Respondent filed its Answer. Exhibits 2⇒ and 3;⇒

Answer. With the exception of the allegation that Respondent holds an Air Carrier 

Certificate and conducts Part 135 operations, the Answer responded to every allegation in 

part II of the Complaint with the statement:

“AMRG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, 

paragraph number [##] of the Complaint and therefore, denies same and 

demands strict proof thereof.” Answer, ¶¶ II.2–II.19.
Prior to serving the Complaint, Complainant provided Respondent notice of the 

allegations in a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, served April 4, 2014 (received by 

AMRG on April 8, 2014) and a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, served 

August 6, 2014. Exhibits 4–7.⇒

2. Respondent’s position that it is “without knowledge or information” is

an admission of Complainant’s allegations.

As the proponent of this motion, Complainant bears the burden of proof by a 

preponderance of evidence. 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.223⇒ and 13.224(b)⇒. 

As a Part 135 air carrier, Respondent is required to maintain certain records. 14 C.F.R. 

§ 135.63.⇒ Among the records which must be maintained for its pilots are:

1. The pilot’s aeronautical experience in sufficient detail to determine the pilot’s

qualifications to pilot aircraft in operations under this part. § 135.63(a)(4)(iii);⇒

2. The date and result of each of the initial and recurrent competency tests and

proficiency and route checks required by this part and the type of aircraft flown

during that test or check. § 135.63(a)(4)(iv);⇒

3. The pilot’s flight time in sufficient detail to determine compliance with the flight

time limitations of this part. § 135.63(a)(4)(vii); and⇒

4. The pilot’s check pilot authorization, if any. § 135.63(a)(4)(viii).⇒

Additionally, Respondent is required to “prepare and keep current a manual setting forth 

the certificate holder’s procedures and policies acceptable to the Administrator.” 

14 C.F.R. § 135.21(a).⇒

A Respondent may deny an allegation on the basis that it lacks sufficient knowledge or 

information to admit or deny. 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(e).⇒ By signing such an answer, the 

party certifies the Answer is “based on reasonable inquiry.” 14 C.F.R § 13.207(b).⇒

Where a party’s assertion of ignorance is obviously a sham, the facts alleged in the 

Complaint are effectively admitted.1 Harvey Aluminum (Inc.) v. N.L.R.B., 335 F.2d 749,⇒

1

 “Under comparable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an answer asserting want of 

knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of facts alleged in a complaint does not serve as a 

denial of the assertion of ignorance is obviously sham. In such circumstances the facts alleged in the 

complaint stand admitted.” 

Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted or Strike Respondent’s Answer

In the Matter of Air Medical Resource Group, Inc.

JEFFREY M. HARPER, FAA ATTORNEY

TEL: (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-1007 

FAA Case No. 2014NM070012, DMS No. FAA-2014-0552

Page 2 of 7 
758 (9th Cir. 1964) citing Mesirow v. Duggan, 240 F.2d 751,⇒ 756 (8th Cir. 1957),

2

see 

also Djourabchi v. Self, 571 F.Supp.2d 41, 50 (D.D.C. 2008).⇒ A finding that 

Complainant’s allegations have been deemed admitted is appropriate when Respondent’s 

answer amounts to an impermissible general denial. 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(e).⇒

Despite these requirements, Respondent avers it lacks the knowledge required to admit or 

deny:

1. The currency of or language from the manual it is required to keep under 

14 C.F.R. § 135.21(a). Answer ¶¶ II.2 and 3.

2. Whether a particular pilot was qualified to act as pilot-in-command for its 135 

operations. Answer ¶¶ II.5 and 15. (Respondent is required to keep records 

sufficient to determine the pilot’s qualification to pilot aircraft under Part 135. 

14 C.F.R. § 135.63(a)(4)(iii).⇒)

3. Whether certain flights for a particular pilot were documented on Respondent’s 

flight and duty time records for that pilot. Answer ¶¶ II.8 and II.18. (Respondent is 

required to maintain records sufficient to determine compliance with the flight 

time limitations of Part 135. 14 C.F.R. § 135.63(a)(4)(vii).⇒)

4. Whether flight and duty time records had been revised. Answer ¶¶ II.10 and II.19.

(Again, Respondent is required to keep records sufficient to determine compliance 

with the flight time limitations; the Complainant asserts Respondent changed its 

own records. 14 C.F.R § 135.63(a)(4)(vii).⇒)

5. Whether a named individual was its Assistant Director of Operations. Answer 

¶ II.13. (Its Assistant Director of Operations is named in its Operations 

Specifications. Exhibit 8.

⇒)

6. Whether a named individual held authorization as a check pilot. Answer ¶ II.14.

(Respondent is required to keep records of its pilots’ check pilot authorization. 

14 C.F.R § 135.63(a)(4)(viii).⇒)

2 “[The allegation in question] was a matter of record in appellee’s control and peculiarly within his 

knowledge, and, under the law and these circumstances, his answer, saying that he ‘was without 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief’ as to that matter, did not constitute a denial of 

the averments of the petition on that score nor put them in issue, and, hence, in the law’s regard, they 

stood admitted.”

Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted or Strike Respondent’s Answer

In the Matter of Air Medical Resource Group, Inc.

JEFFREY M. HARPER, FAA ATTORNEY

TEL: (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-1007 

FAA Case No. 2014NM070012, DMS No. FAA-2014-0552

Page 3 of 7

 
7. Whether a named individual completed a proficiency check on a particular date. 

Answer ¶ II.16. (Respondent is required to keep records of proficiency checks. 

14 C.F.R § 135.63(a)(4)(iv).⇒)

8. Whether a named individual performed the duties of a check airman on particular 

dates. Answer ¶ II.17. (Respondent is required to keep records of both check 

flights and pilots flight time. 14 C.F.R § 135.63(a)(4)(iv) and (vii).⇒)

Since the truth or falsity of these allegations can be readily determined from records that 

Respondent is required to keep, Respondent’s preposterous claims of ignorance indicate a 

lack of inquiry, an inability to maintain required records (and therefore an admission), a 

lack of qualification to hold the air carrier certificate for which maintenance of such 

records is a condition, or all three. Respondent was first put on notice of the allegations 

no later than April 8, 2014, 140 days before the Complaint was a filed. If 140 days was 

not enough time for Respondent to conduct an inquiry, Respondent has 30 days to answer 

the Complaint—but barely used one.

In Harvey, respondent denied an allegation in the complaint that it and a co-respondent 

were affiliated business enterprises. Harvey at 757.⇒ In its answer, as here, co-respondent 

General denied this allegation on the grounds that:

“[Respondent did] not have knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief as to the truth or falsity of [the allegation] and therefore 

denies each and every such allegation.” Id.

The Respondent maintained this claim through the hearing, where the trial examiner 

determined that Respondent’s failure to respond constituted an admission. Id.⇒ On 

appeal, the Ninth Circuit observed that while generally an answer claiming to lack 

sufficient knowledge operates as a denial, the rule does not apply where the claimed 

“ignorance is obviously sham.”3 Harvey at 757–58.⇒ The court noted that whether corespondents were affiliated business enterprises was a fact that was “necessarily within 

the knowledge of [Respondent’s] managing officers.” Harvey at 758.⇒ As the court 

observed, administrative hearings should concern the real issues between the parties. Id.⇒

3 As here, the proceeding in Harvey was not bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

nonetheless, the court found the principle applicable to the administrative proceeding, noting the 

administrative rule was comparable to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.⇒ Harvey, Note 32.

⇒ Although the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply in this case, the Rules and the cases applying them are generally 

viewed as providing persuasive guidance on the meaning and extent of the procedural rules for this 

forum found in 14 C.F.R. Part 13, Subpart G.⇒ In the Matter of KDS Aviation, Inc., FAA Order 

No. 1991-17⇒ at 5 (May 30, 1991); In the Matter of Boris Kirola, FAA Order No. 1994-39⇒ at 5

(December 9, 1994).

Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted or Strike Respondent’s Answer

In the Matter of Air Medical Resource Group, Inc.

JEFFREY M. HARPER, FAA ATTORNEY

TEL: (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-1007 

FAA Case No. 2014NM070012, DMS No. FAA-2014-0552

Page 4 of 7

 
American Photo Copy Equipment Co. v. Rovico, Inc. involved a similar frivolous denial. 

359 F.2d 745⇒ (7th Cir. 1966). In that case, the Defendant alleged in a counterclaim in 

detail the terms of Plaintiff’s license. Id.⇒ at 746. Plaintiff admitted a part of the 

assertion, but claimed is lacked sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the rest. Id.⇒ The 

court held that since the terms of the license were self-evidently known to the plaintiff, 

Plaintiff’s claims did not in effect deny Defendant’s claim. Id.⇒ In addition to the 

rationale provided in Harvey, the court also noted that F.R.C.P. 8(b) stated “denials shall 

fairly meet the substance of the averments denied” and plaintiff’s claims “exhibit[ed] a 

lack of fairness which completed discredit[ed] its statement that it is without knowledge 

of or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth....”4 Id.⇒

As in American Photo Copy Equipment, Respondent here fails to fairly address 

Complainant’s allegations. Like the Respondent in Harvey, Respondent here has made 

the same sort of frivolous denial, using language almost identical to that used by

Respondent in Harvey. The matters alleged by Complainant which Respondent denies 

are, just as in Harvey, necessarily within the knowledge of Respondent since Respondent 

is required to keep records relating to those matters. The appropriate remedy is the same 

as in Harvey and American Photo Copy Equipment—a finding by this Court that the 

allegations in question are admitted. Complainant asks this court for that relief as to 

paragraphs II.2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 of the Complaint—the 

allegations based on information which Respondent, contrary to its specious claims, has 

access to.

It is possible Respondent’s claimed ignorance of the facts results from its failure to 

conduct an inquiry into those facts before filing its Answer. The rules establish the 

remedy in such a case. Where a party signs a document that does not comply with 14 

C.F.R. § 13.207 (which requires the party signing the document to have conducted 

reasonable inquiry) that document may be stricken. 14 C.F.R § 13.207(c)(1).⇒ Should the 

Court believe Respondent’s purported lack of knowledge arises from Respondent’s 

failure to conduct the required inquiry, it should strike the Answer as provided for by that 

rule.5 Courts do not allow parties to benefit from their deliberate efforts to remain 

ignorant of the relevant facts.

4 F.R.C.P. 8(b)(2)⇒ currently reads “Denials—Responding to the Substance. A denial must fairly 

respond to the substance of the allegation.” Although the wording is different, the rule still imposes an 

obligation to answer claims “fairly.”

5 See Moriarty v. Hills Funeral Home, Ltd., 1998 WL 149600⇒ (N.D. Ill. 1998) and Sports Specialties 

Corporation v. Lee, 1992 WL 315206⇒ (N.D. Ill 1992), both striking the entirety of the respective 

Answers which consisted of unreasonable denials of nearly the entire complaint. In Moriarty, the 

Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted or Strike Respondent’s Answer

In the Matter of Air Medical Resource Group, Inc.

JEFFREY M. HARPER, FAA ATTORNEY

TEL: (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-1007 

FAA Case No. 2014NM070012, DMS No. FAA-2014-0552

Page 5 of 7

 
3. Exhibits

1. Certificate of Service, Complaint.

⇒

2. Facsimile Transmission Confirmation.

⇒

3. Email from Jared M. Allen, Esq, The Aviation Law Firm to FAA Counsel J. M.

Harper serving Answer.⇒

4. Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty.⇒

5. Postal Service Delivery Information, Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty.⇒

6. Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty.⇒

7. Postal Service Delivery Information, Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty.⇒

8. Air Medical Resource Group Inc. Operations Specifications Paragraph A006.⇒

4. Conclusion

Respondent’s claims of ignorance in paragraphs II.2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,

and 19 of its Answer can be treated in one of two ways. Either they are sincere, in which

case Complainant asks the Court to deem the corresponding portions of the Complaint

(Paragraphs II.2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19) admitted, as the matters

alleged are ones which are necessarily within Respondent’s knowledge. Alternatively,

Respondent’s denials of those matters were not made after reasonable inquiry, and may

have been made for an improper purpose, such as causing unnecessary delay. In that case,

Complainant asks the Court to strike Respondent’s Answer in its entirety, and to order

Respondent to file a responsive Answer by September 30, 2014.

Respectfully submitted this 2nd day of September, 2014.

________________________ 

J. M. Harper

FAA Attorney

Court noted that striking the entirety of the Answer was appropriate to avoid resorting to “pleading 

patchwork.” 

Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted or Strike Respondent’s Answer

In the Matter of Air Medical Resource Group, Inc.

JEFFREY M. HARPER, FAA ATTORNEY

TEL: (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-1007 

FAA Case No. 2014NM070012, DMS No. FAA-2014-0552

Page 6 of 7 



1

Harper, Jeffrey (FAA)

From: Jared Allen <jallen@aviationlawexperts.com>

Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 1:00 PM

To: Harper, Jeffrey (FAA)

Cc: Greg Winton

Subject: In the Matter of Air Medical Resources Group, Inc. FAA No. 2014NM070012

Attachments: AMRG Answer & Affirmative Defenses 08272014.pdf

Mr. Harper: 

Attached please find an electronic courtesy copy of Respondent’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses filed today 

concerning In the Matter of Air Medical Resources Group, Inc. FAA Case No. 2014NM070012. A copy has 

also been sent to your office via U.S. Mail. 

Regards, 

Jared M. Allen, Esq. 

The Aviation Law Firm 

1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway 

Suite 300 

Annapolis, Maryland 21401 

JAllen@AviationLawExperts.com

Tel: (301) 294-8550 

Fax: (866) 568-9886 

Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4




Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6




Exhibit 7

Exhibit 8