### 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

CaseNo. 2011EA110043

ORDERAUTHORIZING RESPONDENT ATTORNEY TO WITHDRAW EFFECTIVE APRIL 16, 2015, CANCELLINGJUNE 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. Duringthis Scheduling Conference, bothparties were advised that the Litigation Procedure Orderwould include directions for what to do ifan attorney needed to withdraw from the case. (11/24114 Tr.l2 (lines 12-21).) That same day, onNovember24, 2014, an Order Setting LitigationDates 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, pursuantto 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 ofthe attorney's intent to withdraw; b. The name ofthedesignated agent/lay representative ifthe Respondent in the action is a business entity;

c. The current business address, telephone number, and fax number ofthe Respondent and ofits designated business agent;(!d.) d. The date and methodby whichthe Respondent was notified in writing ofthe 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 ofall Orders issued in this litigation, as well as any other legal documents to which the Respondent is entitled.

In addition, based on agreement ofthe 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 aftertheclose ofdiscovery, butpriorto 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 ofHearing 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 laterthat 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 ofHearings ("OH"). This 4/15/15 Letterwas 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 thatthe FAA had been "notified ofthis fact" [date/person/manner ofnotification unstated]. (!d.) Mr. Lichtenstein also statedthat he would "pass yourNotice ofHearing onto the Defendant who is acting prose." (!d.) The4/15/15 Letter did not provide any further information about Mr. Lichtenstein's desire to withdraw or how he had properly notified his client ofhis intentions, orthe 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 mightbe. (!d.; But see, 11124/14 Order, 3-4,**~G.)** Mr. Lictenstein's 4/15115 Letter also failed to attach a Certificate ofService to show that it had been properly served on the Court or any partyby mail, or filed with the FAA Hearing Docket. That same day, on April15, 2015 (4:00pm), the OH attorney stafftelephonedthe Respondent business, to ask if the Respondent knew that there was a pre-hearing Telephone Motion Conference set for Thursday, April 16, 2015 at I0:00 a.m. Easterntime. On behalfofthe Page 2 of 6Respondent, 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. Lichtensteinhadjustfaxed a 4/15/15 Letterto the Court, in which Mr. Lichtenstein asserted that he had "withdrawn". (4/15/15 Letter, 1.) The OH attorney staffalso provided Mr. Robert Roth and the FAA with a copy ofthe 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 morning 1

### on Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time, Mr.

I '\: ·j i1 •: ' Robert Roth, theprose Presidentofthe Respondent, and the FAA appearedby telephone for the ·:1 ,. scheduled Motion Conference. M,r. Sande E. Lichtenstein did not appear, and did notprovide 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. BriefDiscussion
Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §13.218, a pa1iy applying for an order orruling not specifically addressed by the Federal Aviatiqn**~ules** ofPractice ("PARs") must file a written motion seeking suchrelieffrom the Court. 14 

### C.F.R. 

### §13.218(a) and (c). The motionmuststatethe relief sought, andtheparticular grounds supportingthe relief. 14 C.F.R. §13.218(b). Any motion or communication filed withthe 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 lawrequiring notice to or permission ofa tribunal when terminating a representation.") Mr. Lichtenstein's 4/15/15 Letter failed to showthathe hadproperly notified his client ofhis intentions, orthat he had taken steps to protecthis client's interests. See, ABA MRPC 1.16(d). Mr. Lichtenstein failed to notify the Court who the Respondent's new contactfor courtproceedings would be, orhowthe Courtcould
Page 3 of6contactthis person for further proceedings. Mr. Lichtenstein also failed to confirm thathe 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 ofServiceto his 4/15115 Letterto 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 recommendedpractice withthis tribunal, a failure to serve a Notice of t;•·
. Withdrawal on a client can be cured by thejoint appearance ofthe 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'spresence. See,

.. e.g., ABA Model Rules ofProfessional Conduct (Rule 1.16); U.S. District Court, District ofColumbia, 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 November27, 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). Shortlythereafter, in December 2014 [exact date unknown], Mr. Lichtenstein telephoned the FAA attorney andtold him that he planned to withdraw.
Onbehalfofthe Respondent, Mr. Robert Roth agreedthat Mr. Lichtenstein had also telephoned him sometime inDecember 2014 [exact date unknown], andtoldhimthat he was not going to represent the Respondent anymore. However, as the record herein clearly reflects, Mr. Lichtenstein never advised this Court ofhis intentions, and never filed a Motion to Withdraw pursuantto 14 C.F.R. §13.218(a) andthis 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". Italso asserted that a copy ofthe 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 of6addition, neitherthe FAAnorMr. Roth notifiedthis Court ofthe potential problems to the administration ofthis case'sproceedings generatedby Mr. Lichtenstein'sprivatephone 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 ithadnotreceived 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 Courtthat he was newto the '·:···
.. proceedings, did notknow what to, do, and had no idea whether or not Mr. Lichtenstein had ever ' ' ' l provided him with all ofthe documents in the case file. He did not know ifhe had ever seen the FAA's discovery requests. Ifhehad, he wasn't sure he would haverecognizedtheirimportance,
or known howto 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 goingto 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 apro se representative he was not ready for the June 23-24,2015 Hearing, and needed some help in undertaking the representation ofhis business. Despite this difference ofopinion regarding the readiness ofthe case for the scheduled June 2015 Hearing, boththe FAA and Mr. Roth agreed that Mr. Lichtenstein should be allowed to immediately withdraw as counsel for the Respondent.
Conclusion · Pursuantto 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 caselaw, statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, and being fully advised;

Page 5 of6IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §13.218 andthe 11124/14 Order, 3-4,**~G,** Mr. Sande E. Lichtenstein's 4/15/15 Letteris deemed an inferred Motionto Withdraw. 2. Pursuant to the FAA's and Mr. RobertRoth's agreement, Mr. Lichtenstein's 4/15/15 inferred Motion to Withdrawfrom acting as Respondent's Attorney is granted. Mr. Lichtenstein's withdrawal is effective as ofApril 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. Itwill 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. Priorto the close**ofbusih~~·s** onApril 16, 2015, the Office ofHearings ("OH'') attorney staffshall provideto 

### botbJhe FAA and the Respondent written directions on how to electronically access documents filed with the FAA's Hearing Docket in this case. The OH staffwill also provide written directions on how to electronically access regulations applicable to this case. 6. Priorto Wednesday, May 20, 2015, Mr. Roth shall review the disputed matters in the FAA Complaint (Complaint, page 2), and read the regulation whichthe 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) againstthe FAA's allegations. 7. Priorto Wednesday, May 20, 2015, the parties shall conferprivately to discuss the status ofthe 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 aTelephone Conference. Atthattime, the parties will generally report on the status oftheirdiscussions aboutthe 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 ofthis 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 of6DocketNo. 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 WilburWright Building-Suite2W10002 ONE COPY Mr. Zachary M. Berman 

### Complainant's Counsel ,!; ;,; Federal Aviation Administration Office oftheRegional Counsel OJ I Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 TEL: 718-553-3258 FAX: 718-995-5699 Mr. Robert Roth 

### Respondent'sNew LayRepresentative 2075 Smith town Avenue Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 TEL: 631-981-8470 .,

Judge J.E. Sullivan U.S. 

### AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536 Mr. SandeE. 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 orby 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.