**UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION** 

**WASHINGTON, D.C.**

CHANDLER AIR SERVICE

Complainant,

v. CITY OF CHANDLER, ARIZONA

Respondent. FAA Docket No. 16

- 1 3

- 05

**RESPONDENT CITY OF CHANDLER, ARIZONA**  **’ S**  **RESPONSE TO CHANDLER AIR SERVICE’S**  **MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME**  

### TO FILE REPLY AND

**RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS**2

Respondent City

of Chandler, Arizona (the “City”) is compelled to file this response to clarify an apparent misrepresentation of the City ’s position in Complainant Chandler Air Service’s Motion for Extension of Time 

### to File Reply and Response to Motion to Dismiss

. To be clear, the undersigned counsel for the City indicated to counsel for Complainant that the City would not consent to Complainant ’s request for an additional 20

-day extension. The City advised that it would consent to an additional extension of ten days for Complainant ’s Reply, provided that the City

received a similar extension for its Rebuttal. Counsel for the City advised that the City

would not file an opposition if Complainant proceeded to seek an additional 20

-day extension, and would instead simply allow the FAA to rule on Complainant ’s Motion. Complainant ’s statement in its Motion that “the City would not object to Chandler Air Service moving for an extension” (Motion at 3) gives the false impression that the City consents to the Motion. The City

does not. The City withheld its consent to a lengthy additional extension in light of the time Complainant had to prepare its Complaint and investigate the underlying facts and because the parties already agreed to a stipulated schedule for submission of the Answer, Reply and Rebuttal. The City f urther believes that the volume of information and documents supplied by the City should not serve as a basis for an extension, since the information and documents reflect material that Complainant should have, but did not, include in the Complaint. **[SIGNATURE ON NEXT PAGE]**Respectfully submitted this lTth day of October,2013;

Kay Bigelow, Acting City Attomey Chandler City Attorney's Office P.O. Box 4008 Chandler, 

### AZ 85244-4008 Kay.Bi gelow@chandl er az. gov Telephone: (480) 782-4645 Facsimile: (480) 782-4652 W. Eric Daniel S. Reimer Kaplan Kirsch 

### & Rockwell LLP 1001 Connecticut Ave., N'W, Suite 800 Washington, 

### D.C. 20036 epilsk@kaplankirsch. com dreimer@kaplankirsch. com Telephone: (202) 955-5600 Facsimile: (202) 955-5616

J

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Respondent City of Chandler' Arizona's Response to Chandler 

### Air Service's Motion 

### for Extension of Time to File Reply and Response to 

### Motion to Dismiss on the following parties by e-mail at the following addresses: Offrce of the Chief Counsel Attn: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-610 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.Vy'. Washington, 

### D.C. 20591 1 copy via e-mail 9 -AWA-AG C -P art- I 6 @faa. gov Timothy I. McCulloch Gordon 

### & Rees LLP 111 W. Monroe St., Suite 1600 Phoenix, 

### AZ 85003 1 copy via e-mail tmcullouch @gordonr ees. com
Dated this 17th day of October, 2013:

S

4