SERVED: April17, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In The Matter Of: ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

GLOBAL AIRCRAFT 

INTERIORS, INC. 

Respondent 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0324 

Case No. 2011EA110043 

ORDER AUTHORIZING RESPONDENT ATTORNEY TO 

WITHDRAW EFFECTIVE APRIL 16, 2015, 

CANCELLING JUNE 2015 HEARING, AND GRANTING OTHER RELIEF 

On November 24,2014, both the FAA and the Respondent's attorney, Mr. Sande E. 

Lichtenstein, appeared for a Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference and discussed a discovery 

schedule and hearing dates. During this Scheduling Conference, both parties were advised that 

the Litigation Procedure Order would include directions for what to do if an attorney needed to 

withdraw from the case. (11/24114 Tr.l2 (lines 12-21).) 

That same day, on November 24, 2014, an Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures 

was filed (" 11/24114 Order"), which codified all the parties' discovery deadlines and the hearing 

dates. In addition, this 11/24114 Order specifically directed that an attorney seeking to withdraw 

from representation must file a withdrawal request by motion, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §13.218. 

(11/24/14 Order, 3-4, ~G.) In such withdrawal motion, the attorney was to confirm the following: 

a. The date, address, and method by which the Respondent was served with written 

notice of the attorney's intent to withdraw; 

b. The name ofthe designated agent/lay representative if the Respondent in the action is 

a business entity; 

c. The current business address, telephone number, and fax number of the Respondent 

and of its designated business agent; 
(!d.) 

d. The date and method by which the Respondent was notified in writing of the pending 

hearing dates in this litigation, as well as the pending pre-hearing discovery deadlines 

and telephone conferences; and 

e. The date and method by which the Respondent was provided a copy of all Orders 

issued in this litigation, as well as any other legal documents to which the Respondent 

is entitled. 

In addition, based on agreement of the parties, this 11/24/14 Order set a final pre-hearing 

Telephone Motion Conference on April 16, 2015, in order to address either dispositive motions 

and/or any needed matters after the close of discovery, but prior to the parties appearing for the 

scheduled June 23-24, 2015 Hearing in New York City, New York. 

Approximately five (5) months later, on Wednesday, April 15, 2015, a Notice of Hearing 

Location was filed and mailed. As a courtesy to the parties, it was also faxed to each party's 

attorney, with the faxes confirmed received at 11 :41 am (FAA attorney) and 11 :42 am 

(Respondent attorney). 

Ninety (90) minutes later that same day, on Wednesday, April15, 2015 (1:19pm), the 

Respondent's attorney, Mr. Sande E. Lichtenstein, faxed a one-page Letter ("4/15/15 Letter") to 

the Office of Hearings ("OH"). This 4/15/15 Letter was dated "April 15" [sic]. (4/15/15 Letter, 

1.) In it, Mr. Lichtenstein asserted that he "no longer represent[ed]" the Respondent [date 

unspecified/no reference to any motion or Order], and that the FAA had been "notified of this 

fact" [date/person/manner of notification unstated]. (!d.) Mr. Lichtenstein also stated that he 

would "pass your Notice of Hearing onto the Defendant who is acting prose." (!d.) The 4/15/15 

Letter did not provide any further information about Mr. Lichtenstein's desire to withdraw or 

how he had properly notified his client of his intentions, or the actions he had taken to ensure 

that court-ordered deadlines were known and would be met, or who the Respondent's new (and 

informed) representative might be. (!d.; But see, 11124/14 Order, 3-4, ~G.) Mr. Lictenstein's 

4/15115 Letter also failed to attach a Certificate of Service to show that it had been properly 

served on the Court or any party by mail, or filed with the FAA Hearing Docket. 

That same day, on April15, 2015 (4:00pm), the OH attorney stafftelephoned the 

Respondent business, to ask if the Respondent knew that there was a pre-hearing Telephone 

Motion Conference set for Thursday, April 16, 2015 at I 0:00 a.m. Eastern time. On behalf of the 

Page 2 of 6 
Respondent, its President, Mr. Robert Roth, stated that he had not known about this Motion 

Conference. The OH attorney then emailed both Mr. Robert Roth and the FAA, and advised 

them that Mr. Lichtenstein had just faxed a 4/15/15 Letter to the Court, in which Mr. 

Lichtenstein asserted that he had "withdrawn". ( 4/15/15 Letter, 1.) The OH attorney staff also 

provided Mr. Robert Roth and the FAA with a copy of the 11/24/14 Order, as well as the Court's 

conference line contact information for the scheduled Thursday, April 16, 2015 Motion 

Conference. 

The following morning1 on Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time, Mr. I '\: ·j i1 •: ' 

Robert Roth, the pro se President of the Respondent, and the FAA appeared by telephone for the ·:1 ,. 

scheduled Motion Conference. M,r. Sande E. Lichtenstein did not appear, and did not provide any 'i ' 

explanation for his absence (aside, from his one-paged faxed 4/15/15 Letter). During this Motion 

Conference, the parties provided some additional information about Mr. Lichtenstein's absence, 

which will be briefly summarized in the discussion herein. 

Brief Discussion 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.218, a pa1iy applying for an order or ruling not specifically 

addressed by the Federal Aviatiqn ~ules ofPractice ("PARs") must file a written motion seeking 

such relief from the Court. 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(a) and (c). The motion must state the relief 

sought, and the particular grounds supporting the relief. 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(b). Any motion or 

communication filed with the Court must also be properly filed with the FAA Hearing Docket 

and served upon the opposing party. 14 C.P.R. §13.218(a), 14 G.F.R. §13.210, and 14 C.P.R. 

§ 13.211. 

Mr. Lichtenstein's 4/15/15 Letter was not in compliance with the minimum requirements 

mandated by this tribunal for any attorney seeking to withdraw from a case which is in active 

litigation and has been set for Hearing. 11/24/14 Order, 3-4, ~G and 14 C.F.R. §13.218. See 

also, ABA MRPC 1.16(c) ("A lawyer must comply with applicable law requiring notice to or 

permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation.") Mr. Lichtenstein's 4/15/15 Letter 

failed to show that he had properly notified his client of his intentions, or that he had taken steps 

to protect his client's interests. See, ABA MRPC 1.16( d). Mr. Lichtenstein failed to notify the 

Court who the Respondent's new contact for court proceedings would be, or how the Court could 

Page 3 of 6 
contact this person for further proceedings. Mr. Lichtenstein also failed to confirm that he had 

taken necessary actions to ensure that his client's new representative knew about court-ordered 

deadlines so that s/he could meet such deadlines. Mr. Lichtenstein's 4115/15 Letter was also not 

in compliance with 14 C.F.R. §13.210 and 14 C.F.R. §13.211, since Mr. Lichtenstein failed to 

attach a Certificate of Service to his 4/15115 Letter to show that he had properly filed it with the 

Court, served it upon both the FAA and the Respondent, and/or filed it with the FAA Hearing 

Docket. 1 

Although not a recommended practice with this tribunal, a failure to serve a Notice of t;•· . 

Withdrawal on a client can be cured by the joint appearance of the attorney and his client in . ' ' . 

formal proceedings. At that tim~ a ,motion to withdraw may be made on the record, in open 

court, in the client's presence. See, .. e.g., ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 1.16); 

U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, Local Rule 83.6(c). However, in the instant case, Mr. 

Lichtenstein did not appear at the Motion Conference on Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. 

Eastern time, despite the fact the date and time had been set with his agreement on November 24, 

2014. (11/24114 Order, 3, ~A (10).) 

During the April 16,2015 Motion Conference, the FAA explained that on November 27, 

2014 (i.e., three (3) days after the parties had convened for the November 24, 2014 Litigation 

Scheduling Conference), it had served Mr. Lichtenstein with discovery requests (i.e., 

Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission). Shortly thereafter, in 

December 2014 [exact date unknown], Mr. Lichtenstein telephoned the FAA attorney and told 

him that he planned to withdraw. 

On behalf of the Respondent, Mr. Robert Roth agreed that Mr. Lichtenstein had also 

telephoned him sometime in December 2014 [exact date unknown], and told him that he was not 

going to represent the Respondent anymore. However, as the record herein clearly reflects, Mr. 

Lichtenstein never advised this Court of his intentions, and never filed a Motion to Withdraw 

pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §13.218(a) and this Court's directive. (11/24/14 Order, 3-4, ~G) In 

1 The 4/15/15 Letter did assert, via initials "SEL:jt" that it had been cc' d "by facsimile" to the FAA attorney at"718-

995-5699". It also asserted that a copy of the 4/15/15 Letter had been cc'd to Mr. Robert Roth and to Global 

Aircraft Interiors, Inc., but it did not state who had provided the "cc", what addresses had been utilized, or by what 

method such communication had been sent (e.g., mail, e-mail, fed ex, fax, personal delivery, etc.). 

Page 4 of 6 
addition, neither the FAA nor Mr. Roth notified this Court of the potential problems to the 

administration ofthis case's proceedings generated by Mr. Lichtenstein's private phone calls to 

them five (5) months ago, his failure to respond to the FAA's discovery requests; and his failure 

to comply with the Court's 11/24/14 Order. 

During the April 16, 2015 Motion Conference, the FAA agreed it had not received any 

' 

responses from Mr. Mr. Lichtenstein to its discovery requests. In fact, no discovery exchange 

between the parties had occurred after the parties had participated in the November 24, 2014 

Litigation Scheduling Conference (e.g., no documents exchanged, no expert witness 

;) . 

identification, no reports exchanged, no motions filed, no depositions, etc.). See, e.g., 11/24/14 • .... ;..'·.::. 

Order, 1-3, ~A (1-9)). Mr. Robert Roth further advised this Court that he was new to the 

'·:··· .. 

proceedings, did not know what to, do, and had no idea whether or not Mr. Lichtenstein had ever ' ' ' l 

provided him with all of the documents in the case file. He did not know if he had ever seen the 

FAA's discovery requests. If he had, he wasn't sure he would have recognized their importance, 

or known how to respond. Mr. Roth did recall, however, that in March 2015 [exact date 

unknown], he had e-mailed the FAA attorney to advise him that he could not afford another 

attorney, so he and his wife were going to try and address the matter themselves. 

During the April 16, 201'5.· M,otion Conference, the FAA asserted that it was still willing 

and able to proceed to hearing on June 23, 2105. In contrast, Mr. Roth asserted that as a pro se 

representative he was not ready for the June 23-24,2015 Hearing, and needed some help in 

undertaking the representation of his business. Despite this difference of opinion regarding the 

readiness ofthe case for the scheduled June 2015 Hearing, both the FAA and Mr. Roth agreed 

that Mr. Lichtenstein should be allowed to immediately withdraw as counsel for the Respondent. 

Conclusion · 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §13.205, 14 C.F.R. §13.218, and the ABA Model Rules of 

Professional Conduct (Rule 1.16( c); and after having reviewed the case file, all pleadings and 

motions, all relevant case law, statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, and being fully advised; 

Page 5 of 6 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §13.218 and the 11124/14 Order, 3-4, ~G, Mr. Sande E. 

Lichtenstein's 4/15/15 Letter is deemed an inferred Motion to Withdraw. 

2. Pursuant to the FAA's and Mr. Robert Roth's agreement, Mr. Lichtenstein's 4/15/15 

inferred Motion to Withdraw from acting as Respondent's Attorney is granted. Mr. 

Lichtenstein's withdrawal is effective as of April 16, 2015 at 11 :OOam Eastern time. 

3. The June 23-24,2015 Hearing currently scheduled in this case in New York City, NY is 

hereby cancelled. It will be reset at a later date in these proceedings. 

4. The record herein is updated to show that Mr. Robert Roth, the Respondent's President 

and Owner, is the new representative for the Respondent. 

5. Prior to the close ofbusih~~·s on April 16, 2015, the Office of Hearings ("OH'') attorney 

staff shall provide to botb Jhe FAA and the Respondent written directions on how to 

electronically access documents filed with the FAA's Hearing Docket in this case. The 

OH staff will also provide written directions on how to electronically access regulations 

applicable to this case. 

6. Prior to Wednesday, May 20, 2015, Mr. Roth shall review the disputed matters in the 

FAA Complaint (Complaint, page 2), and read the regulation which the FAA alleges the 

Respondent has violated (14 C.F.R. § 145.207(a)). Mr. Roth shall begin to consider what 

evidence the Respondentmight have to support its defense(s) against the FAA's 

allegations. 

7. Prior to Wednesday, May 20, 2015, the parties shall confer privately to discuss the status 

of the case, and determine what issue(s) remain in dispute. 

8. On Wednesday, May 20,2015 at lO:OOam-ll:OOam Eastern time, the parties shall reconvene for a Telephone Conference. At that time, the parties will generally report on the 

status of their discussions about the case, and further discuss any new litigation schedule 

needed. To access the Court's conference line, the parties shall call 202-493-2343. 

9. For clarifications of this order or questions with regard to the procedures to be followed 

in this case, please contact Mr. Cody L. Smith, Attorney-Advisor, at the Office of 

Hearings (202-366-6941 ). 

Attachment: Service List 

Page 6 of 6 
Docket No. FAA-2014-0324 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY lJ.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0002 

ONE COPY 

Mr. Zachary M. Berman 

Complainant's Counsel , !; ;,; 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office ofthe Regional Counsel OJ 

I Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3258 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

Mr. Robert Roth 

Respondent's New Lay Representative 

2075 Smith town A venue 

Ronkonkoma, NY 11 779 

TEL: 631-981-8470 ., 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey A venue, S.E. (E ll-31 0) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Mr. Sande E. Lichtenstein 

Respondent's Former Counsel 

Lichtenstein & Schindel 

158 West Boston Post Road 

P.O. Box 787 

Mamaroneck, NY 10543 

TEL: 914-698-3313 

2 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.