SERVKl) : FEBRUAR Y 17,201 2 

## .::jyi^^)RMNTO F U.S . DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N .i!>;V'J^vQf^];^TO^ ^ OFFIC E O F HEARING S .'---^E l OKERAlJUiN S WASHINGTON , D C 

## M 

## 'ii^ ? ! 

## A !( > 0 3 I N TH EMATTE RO F LIGHTNIN GAIRCRAF T CORPORATIO N

Responden t FA A DOCKE T NO . |T O B EASSIGNED ] {Civi l Penalt y Proceeding ) FDM S NO : FAA-20II- I 124 ORDE RO FCHIE FADMINISTRATIV ELA WJUDG EGRANTIN GMOTIO N T O DISMIS S REQUES T FO RHEARIN GAN D ASSESSIN GA CIVI LPENALT Y B y thei r "Motio n t o Di.sniis s Reques t fo r A Hearing " dole dSeptembe r 9 . 2011 . Complainan t

seek s t o dismis s Respondent' s reques t fo r ahearing , arguin g tha t Responden t

faile d t o fil e it s reques t

withi n 1 5 day s o f

receip t o f th e Fina l Notic e o f

Propose dCivi l Penalt y C'FNPCP'" ) a s require db y 1 4 C.F.R . §13.218(0(2)(i). ' O n Decembe r 10 . 2010 . th e Complainan t issue daNotic e o f

Propose dCivi l Penall y agains t Responden t

i n th e amoun t

o f S6.600.0 0 fo r allege dviolation s o f

th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulations , an dinclude dinformatio n regardin g Respondent' s option s fo r respondin g t o th e Notice. " O n Ma y 5 , 2010 . Complainan t issue dth e FNPCP . whic hwa s serve dupo n Responden t vi acertifie dan dregula r U S mail , an dwa s serve d upo n Respondent' s counse l vi asam e da y facsimil e an dregula r U S mail . Accordin g l o Complainant' s Motion , th e certifie dmailin g wa s receive db y Responden t o n Ma y 9 . 2011 .

' Complninum' s Moiio

n l o Dismis s Reques

t to r u Hearing , a

t 1 . Unde r 1 4 C.F.R . i ? l3.21S(r)(2Hi) a

n agenc y aitnrne y ma y tH e amotio n l o dismis s areques

t fo r hearin g instea do f filin g acomplaint . Se

e I n the Maile

r o f Susa n Richardson . DM

S No . FAA-2()!()-l 2 10 . Orde r Grantin g Moiio n l o Dismis s Reques

t fo r Hearin g an dAs.sessin g Civi l Penalt y (Januar y 11 . 20II) . ' Noliu' e o f Propttse dCivi l Penalty , n

i 3 . • ' Fina l Notice of . Propose dCivi l Penally , a

t 1 . " * Complainant' s Moiio

n l o Dismis s Reques

t fo r aHearing , a

t 1 .Include di n th e FNPC Pwa s adescrijjtio n o f th e procedur e t o reques t ahearing , an d direction s tiia

t areques t

fo r aIiearin g mus t

b e mad e withi n 1 5 day s o f receip t o f tli e Fina l Notice. ' O n Jun e 21 . 20 1 1 . th e Complainan t issue dan Orde r

Assessin g Civi l Penalty. ' O n Augus t 31 . 20 1 I . Respondent , throug hcounsel , requeste dahearin g i n thi s matter. ^ Th e procedura l rule s requir e tha t Responden t

pa y th e propose dcivi l penalt y o r fil e a reques t fo r hearin g wit hth e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n docke t cler k withi n 1 5 day s o f receip t o f afinal nolic c o f

propose dcivi l penally. ^ Failur e t o fil e atimel y reques t fo r hearin g ca n resul t i n an orde r

assessin g civi l penalty . Sinc e th e Responden t receive dth e FNPC Po n Ma y 9 . 20 1 I , th e reques t

fo r hearin g wa s du e o n o r

befor e Ma y 24 , 2011 . Consequently . Respondent' s Augus t 31 . 2011 . reques t

forbearin g wa s untimely . Responden t

ha s no t file dan answe r

t o Complainant' s motion , but i n it s reques t

fo r hearin g Responden t

argue dtha t

th e untimel y reques t

shoul db e granted , becaus e it s counsel' s offic e ha dundergon e " anumbe r o f unforesee n problems " beginnin g o n o r aroun dApri l I , 2011 . Responden t

argue s that

thes e problem s prevente dthe mfro mfilin g atimel y reques t fo r hearing , an dtha t

th e circumstance s constitut e "excusabl e neglec t an dinadvertence , justifyin g Respondent' s untimel y filing." " Accordin g t o th e reques t fo r hearin g an dan accompanyin g affidavit , aroun dApri l I , 2011 . Respondent' s counsel' s offic e los t fou r attorney s an dbecam e severel y understaffed.' " Th e affidavi t allege s tha t

aroun dthi s tim e Respondent' s counse l drafte d areques t fo r hearin g an dgav e i

t t o on e o f

hi s associat e attorney s wit hinstmction s t o 'Til e an d

^ Se e Fina l Notice o f Propose dCivi l Penalty , a

t 3 . " Orde r Assessin g Civi l Penalt y a t 1 . ^ Respondent' s Reques

t fo r aHearing/Answer, a

t 2 . ^See I4C.RR . §13.16(d)(2) . * 1 4 C.F.R . §13.16(d)(2) provide s tha t "a n orde r assessin g civi l penalt y ma y ti e is.sue di f aperso n charge dwit ha violatio n doe s no t reques t ahearin g unde r paragrap h(g){2)(ii) o

f thi s sectio n withi n 1 5 day s afte r receip t o f afina l notice o f propose dcivi l penalty * ' ° Respondent' s Reques

t fo r aHearing/Answer, a

t I . "W . '•W . al2 .. l ^ '

serv e i t o n al l parties. " Th e associat e atioine y subsequentl y lef t th e firm , an dth e documen t wa s no t served . Responden t

furthe r contend s tha t

o n Ma y 4 . 20 1 I . it s Counse l bega n atria l that laste d"man y week s longe r tha n anticipated " an dkep t hi mfro mworkin g i n th e office . Res])onden t

contend s tiia

t Counse l onl y receive dnotic e that th e reques t

ha dno t bee n file dwhe n the y wer e serve dwithth e Administrator' s Orde r Assessin g Civi l Penalty." ' An untimel y reques t

fo r hearin g ma y onl y b e excuse dfor goo dcause.' ^ I

n decidin g I X whethe r goo dcaus e exists , w e loo k t o th e reaso n wh y th e documen t wa s late-filed . Goo dcaus e ha s bee n foun dt o exis t

wher e th e responden t

di dno t understan dtha t

tw o civi l penalt y action s wer e pendin g agains t

hi man drequeste donl y on e hearin g becaus e th e nolic c i n th e secon dwa s virtuall y identica l t o th e notic e i n th e first . Th e Administrato r ha s als o foun dgoo dcaus e l o exis t wher e respondent' s counse l miscalculate dth e deadlin e for perfectin g an appeal , notin g tha t counse l ha dtake n "step s l o protec t agains t th e dange r

o f default. " suc ha s reviewin g th e Rule s o f Practic e an ddraftin g an interna l memorandu mfo r other s i n hi s fir mregardin g calendarin g o f th e appeal. " O n th e othe r

hand , goo dcaus e ha s no t bee n foun dt o exist , an dcivi l penaltie s hav e bee n assessed , wher e aresponden t neglecte dt o explai n an untimel y reques t fo r hearing. " Th e law doe s no t

favo r defaults , an dw e understan dthat 1 4 C.F.R . !

j 13.16(e)(2 ) i s intende dt o ensur e tha t

aresponden t

wil l fil e atimel y reques t for hearin g - no t

t o se t adefaul t

' ' Declaratit

mo f Charle s Mathew s i

n Suppor t o f Respondent' s Untimel

y Reques t fo r aHearing/Answer, a

t 2 . '" ' Respondent' s Reques

t lo r aHearing/Answer, a

t 2 . ' ^ Dcclaralio

n (i f Charle s Mathew s i

n Suppor t o f Respondent' s Untimel

y Reques t fo r aHearing/Answer, a

t 2 . " * Respondent' s Reques

t fo r aHearing/Answer, a

t 2 . '" ^ Se e I n ih e Matte r o f Car l P . Uinf-hm. FA

A Orde r No . 93-1 2 (Marc

h25 . 1993) . ' ^ Se e I n th e Matte r o f Alpin e Aviation, hic. . FA

A Docke t No . CP05NM0026 . Orde

r Serve dNovembe

r 2 . 200 5 a t 2 ; h i th e Matte l a f Michae l Joh n Costello . FA

A Orde r No . 92- 1 a

t 5 (Januar y 9 . t992f . R\a n Internationa

l Airline.w FA A Dockc i No . CP99GL00

I I . Orde r serve dJul y 20 . 1999 . a

t l.affd . FA

A Orde r NO . 2000- 2 (Fehruar

y 3 . 2000) . ' ^ Se c I n th e Matte r o f Rober t Harris . FA

A Docke t No . CP03FA0() K

Orde r Serve dAugus t 27 , 2003 a

t 2 ; // ; th e Matte r o f Raymoiu l B . Strohl . FA

A Orde r No . 94- 6 (Marc

h10 . 1994) .

- " I n th e Maile r o f Warheloxv' s Ai

r Veniiacs . Inc. . FA

A Orde r No . 99- 4 a t 2- 3 (Jul y t . 1999) .

- ' See . e.i;. . Rya

n hiiernationa

l Airlines . FA

A Docke t No . CP99GLOO

I I . Orde r serve dJul y 20 . 1999 . a

t i.ajf'd . FA A Orde r No . 2(K)0- 2 (Februar y 3 . 2000) . 3tra p for

th e unwary." " Accotdingly . w e hav e refuse dt o gran t defaiti t juilgmcnt s whe n respotident s tiia y hav e bee n confuse db y th e technica l requiiemcnl s o f thes e proceedings. " However . Responden t

i s represente db y counsel : iherefore . thi s i s no t asituatio n wher e Responden t

ma y b e sai dt o b e confuse db y atechtiica l requiicnient . Indeed . Responden t an dit s coun.se l wer e warne di

n th e Fina l Notic e tha t

areques t

for ahearin g mus t

b e "maile do r personall y delivered , o n o r befor e 1 5 days " afte r

receip t o f th e Fina l Notice. " Respondent' s argumen t that unforesee n problem s resulte di n excusabl e tieglec t

ar e no t persuasive . Th e timeline s fo r

filin g areques t

fo r hearin g wer e mad e clea r l o Responden t

a t ever y stag e o f

th e proceedings . Additionally . Responden t provide s n o explanatio n for wh y afte r

learnin g o f

it s failur e t o fil e atimel y rcqites t o n Jun e 21 . 2011 , i

t delaye dan additiona l tw o month s befor e filin g it s request . "Mer e negligenc e o f counse l canno t

constitut e goo dcause." " Absen t an explanatio n fo r thi s additiona l delay , goo dcaus e ha s no t bee n presented . Moreover . Responden t faile dt o repl y t o Complainant' s motio n t o dismis s Respondent' s reques t fo r hearing , an dthereb y waive d an y objectio n t o th e motion . Accordingly , th e Complainant' s motio n l o dismis s Respondent' s reques t fo r ahearin g i s granted , an dResponden t i s assesse dacivi l penalt y i n th e amoun t

o f $6,600.00 . Responden t ma y appea l thi s decisio n pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . i

j 13.233(a ) b y filin g aNotic e o f Appea l wit hth e Appellat e Docke t

Clerk , Federa l Aviatio n Administration . AGC-430 . Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W1000 . SO

O Independenc e Avenue . S.W. . Washingto n D C 205 9 Lno t late r tha n 1 0 day s

" ' See . e.};. . Rober

t Harri.s. . FA

A Docke t No . CP03EAU01 . Orde

r serve dAugus t 27 . 2003 . a

t 3 : Spiri t Airline. w Inc. . FA A Docke t No . CP02GL0044 , Orde

r serve dApri l 23 . 2002 . a

t 3 .

- ^ Se e e.g. . Rober

t Harris. . FA

A Docke t No . CP03EAn{)l . Orde

r serve dAugus t 27 . 2003 . a

t 3 . •" ' Fina l Notic e o f Propose dCivi l Penalt y a t 3 . ' ^ I n th e Matte r o f Spiri t Airtine.s . Inc . FA

A Docke t No . CP02GL0()44 . Orde

r serve dApri l 23 . 2002 . a

t 2 . citin g I n the Matte r o f Car l P . Langton . FA

A Orde r 93-1 2 (Marc

h25 . 1993)(agenc

y attorney' s failur

e t o retur n atelephon

e cal l fro mRespondent' s counse

l doe s no t excus e Respondent' s counsel' s failur e t o fil e atimel y hearin g request) . Se

e als o I n th e Matte r o f Davi dLlo\(l Cornwall . FA

A Orde r No . 92-4 7 (Jul y 22 . I992)(unfamiliarit

y wit hth e rule s o f practice is no

t goo dcause) .

### afte

r servic e oi ' thi s orde r

by filin g a

n appea l brie f wit hth e FA A decisionmake r S O OUnKRED .

Ronni^^A . Yodei

Chie f Administrativ e U : Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis t

- 5

-FDM S NO : FAA-20 : 2 4 SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y U.S . Deparlmen i o f

Transportatio n Docke t Operations . M-3 0 Wes t Buildin g Groun dFloo r Roo mW12-14 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 ON ECOP Y Charle s Mathews . Esq . Jeffre y Nakao . Esq . Hespoitden l ' s Counse l 259 6 Missio n Street . Suit e 20 4 SanMarino . CA9110 8 FAX ; 626-683-829 5 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g -Suit e 2WI00 0 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 80 0 Independenc e Avenue . S W Wa.shington . D C 2059 1 Larr y Buchana n Lightnin g Aircraft , Inc. . Rcspoiulen i 423 3 Nort hSant aAnita . El Monte , C A 9173 1 Lis aToscatio . Cluinuml' s Counse l Attorney . Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counse l Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n P.O . Bo x 9200 7 Lo s Angeles . C A 90009-200 7 TEL : 310-725-710 0 FAX : 310-725-681 6 Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yodcr . Chie f Adtnini.slrariv e La w Jttili> e U.S . Depailmen t

o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Hearings . M-2 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue . S.E . Washington . D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-214 2 FAX : 202-366-753 6

- 6 -