U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of Mary E. Bochiardy 

2011EA170066 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0853 

Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan 

ReCEIVED 

CCi 0 7 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S SEPTEMBER 24,2014 REQUEST FOR 

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL FILING 

COMES NOW the Agency, the Federal Aviation Administration, by and through its designated and 

authorized representative, the Regional Counsel for the Eastern Region, and his designated and 

authorized representatives, and files its response to the Respondent's September 24, 2014 request 

for supplemental filing. The Agency's response, pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.214(c)1

, is as follows: 

1. On February 12, 2013, Respondent was provided with a copy of the Board's Rules of 

Practice, Subpart G. See Agency's Motion to Strike (filed February 21, 2014) at Exhibit B. 

2. On October 29, 2013, a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty was served and it directed 

Respondent to 14 C.F .R. § 13.16 for instructions about how to request an appeal. See id. at 

Exhibit C. 

3. On February 21, 2014, Respondent was provided with a second copy of the Board's Rules of 

Practice, Subpart G. See id. 

4. On June 11, 2014, Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan, served an Order Finding the 

Request for Hearing Untimely, Reserving the FAA's Motion to Dismiss and Setting Deadline 

for Filing Supplemental Material (hereafter, "Order #1"). 

1 Although Respondent did not classify her filing as an amended pleading, in 

her cover letter to the Department of Transportation she stated that she was 

filing an "updated June 24, 2014 response, Certificate of Service, and all 

signature pages 1,2 and 10". 

1 
5. Order # 1 required Respondent to file "full email correspondence available to support her 

good cause arguments asserting a miscommunication between herself and Mr. Reigel 

regarding the filing of an appeal. If so, the Respondent needs to immediately file the full 

email correspondence, or in the alternative, fully disclose the date(s) and specific content of 

all missing communications, to perfect any good cause argument" by June 25, 2014. 

6. On June 24, 2014, Respondent filed an unsigned Request for Supplemental Material. 

7. On July 3, 2014, the Agency filed its Supplemental Reply to Respondent's Supplement 

Material Filing By Request of the U.S. Department of Transportation. 

8. On September 8, 2014, Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan, served an Order Setting 

Deadline For The Respondent To Submit Signature For Supplemental Filing (hereafter, 

"Order #2"). 

9. Order #2 required Respondent to "review her 6/24/14 Respondent Supplement, and then file 

a sigued copy of pages 1, 2, and 10 of the June 24,2014 material" by September 26,2014. 

10. On September 22, 2014, Attorney-Advisor for the Office of Hearings, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Mr. Cody Smith, clarified for Respondent that she can comply with Order #2 

by either "resubmitting the 6/24/14 Respondent Supplement in its entirety with pages 1, 2, 

and 10 signed, or [] submit[] signed versions of pages 1, 2, and 10 with a brief statement 

explaining why [she] was submitting them and that the signed pages should replace pages 1, 

2, and 10 of the 6/24/14 Respondent Supplement." See Exhibit A. 

11. On this same date, Mr. Cody Smith provided Respondent with a copy of the Rules of 

Practice, published at 14 C.F.R. Part 13, subparts C and G. 

12. On September 23,2014, Respondent replied to Mr. Smith's email. See Exhibit A. 

13. On September 24, 2014, Respondent mailed an amended version of her previous Request for 

Supplemental Material. 2 

14. Respondent did not comply with the requirements set forth in Orders #1 and # 2 or the 

instructions provided by Mr. Cody Smith. 

2 In her Certificate of Service, Respondent incorrectly certified that she 

mailed the filing on September 23, 2014. See Exhibit B. 

2 
I. Respondent Did Not Comply With The Administrative Law Judge's Order or the 

Department Of Transportation's Attorney-Advisor's Instructions. 

The directions contained in Order #2 were clear and concise. Respondent was ordered to 

file a signed copy of pages 1, 2, and 10 of her June 24. 2014 submission. Thereafter, AttorneyAdvisor Mr. Cody Smith for the Department of Transportation iterated these instructions to 

Respondent on September 23, 2014. See Exhibit A His instructions were unambiguous. With 

the exception of providing a signature, neither Order # 2 nor Mr. Smith's instructions provided 

Respondent with leave to amend, expand, or modifY her June 24, 2014 filing. 

Notwithstanding, the Agency seeks to highlight the amendments made by Respondent in 

her supplement filing herein. Specifically, Respondent amended her filing by deleting, adding to, 

or modifying parts of the original June 24, 2014 submission through: 

a. Page 3 and Attachment A3

. Respondent attached a part of a Client Services 

Agreement between herself and Attorney Reigel. Respondent did not provide a copy 

of this document previously. Notably, her current (unsigned) attachment does not 

include the entire Agreement, so it is unclear what the scope of representation 

between Respondent and Attorney Reigel included, i.e., did it include the filing of 

appeals on her behalf? 

b. Page 4. Respondent deletes the date December 30, 2013 from her submission. This 

deletion is significant, as Respondent's original submission represented that she 

learned, for the first time, on December 30, 2013 that Attorney Reigel was no longer 

representing her. In its response, the Agency challenged this statement and offered 

proof to the contrary. It must be noted that Respondent does not identity any 

alternative date. Consequently, it is not clear when Respondent learned that Attorney 

Reigel would no longer represent her in this matter. 

c. Page 5. Respondent added information pertaining to her travel plans. It should be 

noted that the time period identified is an approximation. Regardless, Respondent 

previously had the opportunity to, but did not provide, this information in her original 

submission. Notwithstanding, the time period identified does not substantiate good 

3 The underlined portions of this section refer to Respondent's September 24, 

2014 filing. 

3 
cause for Respondent because she received the Order Assessing Civil Penalty on 

December 17,2014. 

d. Page 6. Respondent added an entire new section- section v. She also added a phone 

log. Respondent stated that she downloaded the phone log to an MS excel format, 

however, a duplicate original of the phone log was not provided, for reasons that are 

not clear. See Respondent's September 24, 2014 submission at 6. Respondent 

further states, at page 7 of her submission, that these are the phone logs from the 

period of November 13, 2013 through December 6, 2013. Respondent did not 

provide phone logs from the period after December 6, 2013.4 As a result, the Agency 

asserts that her submission is incomplete and consequently, may not comply with the 

requirements set forth in Order #!. Based on this submission however, it appears 

there is another communication between Respondent and Attorney Reigel that 

Respondent failed to disclose in either submission. Specifically, on November 22, 

20!3, Respondent called Attorney Reigel's office at 3:20 p.m. The call lasted for 

approximately 10 minutes. 5 Instead, she states that she spoke with Attorney Reigel 

on her office landline at approximately 3:50 p.m.6 

e. Page 7. Respondent added an explanation about her office land line (top of the page). 

She stresses that corroborative evidence of her statement is "not available to solicit 

and is proprietary to IBM and its customers." 

f. Page 8. Respondent added information about what was discussed between herself 

and Attorney Reigel on November 19, 2013. 

g. Page 10. Respondent added the word "emphatically" to describe Attorney Reigel's 

advice regarding appeals. 

4 For reference, Respondent received the Order Assessing Civil Penalty on 

December 17, 2013. Respondent claims she was still represented by Attorney 

Reigel during this period. 

5The call was placed to 952-238-1060 in Hopkins, Minnesota. Attorney Reigel's 

practice is located in Hopkins, Minnesota. The phone number listed on 

Attorney Reigel's email to Agency counsel and website is the same. See 

Agency's Motion to Dismiss Late-Filed Appeal at Exhibits Band J. 

6

It must be noted that November 22, 2013 is the date Respondent claims, on 

page 5 of her submission, that she was travelling by car from Florida to New 

Jersey. 

4 
h. Pages 10-11. Respondent added the last paragraph that begins on page 10. 

Respondent states she was not given reference to the applicable Code of Federal 

Regulations until after December 2013. As noted above, Respondent was first 

provided a copy of the regulations on February 12, 2013. Thereafter, on October 29, 

2013, she was directed to the appropriate regulations regarding how to file an appeal. 

A second copy of the regulations was provided to her on February 21, 2014. In her 

recent communication with Mr. Cody Smith, Respondent still asserts that she has "no 

idea which of the hundreds of CFR rules apply . . . [and] would need considerable 

time to review and understand how specifically to comply to all of this." Exhibit A. 

1. Page 12. Respondent expands her responses to section 6. 

J. Deleted Attachments. Respondent did not attach emails to her updated signed 

submission that were previously submitted with her original submission. 

Significantly, Respondent did not include the November 5, 2013 email between 

herself and her attorney. See Exhibit C. Previously, the Agency challenged the 

Respondent's submission of this document and claimed that it was not complete. See 

Agency's July 3, 2013 Supplemental Reply to Respondent's Supplemental Material 

Filing at 5. This email was important because the email references questions that 

Respondent asked of her attorney for which Respondent to date has not disclosed 

what the contents of her questions were nor disclosed the email she sent to her 

attorney with these questions. Respondent also did not attach the June 10, 2013 email 

from Attorney Reigel to her updated submission. 

Respondent offers no explanation for her failure to follow the clear and unambiguous 

instructions provided by the Administrative Law Judge or the Attorney-Advisor from the 

Department of Transportation ("DOT"). Respondent has been repeatedly directed to the rules 

governing civil penalty proceedings and has been provided with at least three copies - two from 

the Agency and one from the DOT. Her failure to comply with the rules governing these 

proceedings should not be overlooked. See generally In the Matter of Ace Pilot Training, FAA2012-11975 (2005). See also In the Matter of Aviation Resources. Inc., FAA-2002-11515 

(2002). "Although pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than those drafted by an 

attorney, a party's pro se status does not exempt him from compliance with procedural or 

substantive law." In the Matter of Fritz Haiss, FAA-2003-15767 (2006). 

5 
Moreover, as Respondent did not sign the original June 24, 2014 submission in its 

entirety, any statements or documents included in the original submission but not included in the 

amended submission should be given no weight towards her good cause argument. Respondent 

did not sign her original pleading, therefore the deleted statements and documents were not 

certified by Respondent that those filings were accurate and supported by evidence to the best of 

Respondent's knowledge, information, and belief See Fed. R Civ. Proc. 11(b). Respondent's 

amended submission contains attachments previously provided in her original submission. As a 

result, it can be presumed that Respondent intended not to resubmit all of the documents from 

her original, yet unsigned, submission. Nor did Respondent address the Agency's previous 

objections to these documents in her amended submission or offer an explanation for their 

deletion. Consequently, as Respondent intentionally deleted emails between herself and her 

attorney from the current submission, it caunot be stated that she fully complied with the 

Administrative Law Judge's Order #1 because she failed to submit "full email correspondence 

available" to her. Respondent's non-compliance with Order # 1 caunot be ignored and a 

dismissal of Respondent's appeal on these grounds is warranted and just. 

B. Respondent Still Has Not Provided Good Cause For Filing Her Appeal Late And 

Failed to Perfect Her Good Cause Argument. 

Respondent's September 26, 2014 supplemental submission still does not establish good 

cause for her filing the appeal late and as such, the Agency relies upon and incorporates by 

reference, the arguments previously submitted by the Agency to the Court on July 3, 2014. 

Further, Respondent's original (unsigned) submission stated that she learned for the first time 

that Attorney Reigel was no longer representing her on December 30, 2013. Her recent 

submission is silent as to when she first learned this fact, although the Agency previously 

provided an email from Respondent that states she was aware of this fact at least as early as 

December 24, 2013. See Motion to Dismiss Late-Filed Appeal at Exhibit E, page 5. 

Notwithstanding her receipt of the Order Assessing Civil Penalty on December 17, 2013, 

Respondent purportedly waited an entire week before contacting her attorney about the Order. 

See id. Respondent provided no telephone logs or other written or electronic communications 

pertaining to the period after December 6, 2013 and expects the Agency and DOT to believe that 

upon learning of her attorney's failure to file an appeal that she had absolutely no 

6 
communication with her attorney about this issue or received any guidance or instruction from 

him about this matter. Respondent's submissions are silent about this issue and she has not 

provided any phone logs for this period to corroborate her bold assertion. Respondent did not 

provide the entire services agreement entered into with her attorney so it is unclear whether or 

not her attorney had the authority to file an appeal on her behalf. The veracity of Respondent's 

assertions is further questionable in light of the December 24, 2013 email from Attorney Reigel 

which stated he did not file an appeal based on Respondent's previous instructions. See 

Agency's Motion to Dismiss Late-Filed Appeal, Exhibit E at page 5. Nor did Respondent file 

any billing statements received from Attorney Reigel which would undoubtedly contain evidence 

of any telephone calls and the dates any work was performed by Attorney Reigel. The lack of 

this information in her original (unsigned) and supplemental filing is suspect. 

Lastly, even if Respondent learned about her attorney's failure to file an appeal for the 

first time on December 24, 2013, which the Board does not concede7

, Respondent still offers no 

good cause for why it took her until January 8, 2014 to file an appeal. The Department has long 

held that "[p ]rocedural rules must be enforced in a non-arbitrary manner to ensure the integrity 

of the civil penalty process, even where this results in severe consequences." In re Jimmy Lee 

Harkins, CP93AL214 (1994). See also In the Matter of Panalpina. Inc., CP06S00029 (2006). 

Respondent has been afforded a significant amount of opportunity to demonstrate good cause 

and she has repeatedly failed to meet the standards established. 

7 In an email from Attorney Reigel dated December 24, 2013, he clearly states 

that he previously informed Respondent that he would no longer be 

representing her in this matter and that she informed him that she would 

pursue an appeal on her own. See Agency's Motion to Dismiss Late-Filed 

Appeal at Exhibit E, page 5. As previously argued, Respondent has identified 

no malpractice case or ineffective assistance of counsel claim filed against 

Attorney Reigel. Consequently, unlike Respondent, there does not appear to be 

any motive for Attorney Reigel to make this representation. 

7 
WHEREFORE, for all of the above reasons and for the reasons previously set forth in the 

Agency's July 3, 2014 Supplemental Reply to Respondent's Supplemental Material Filing By 

Request of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Agency respectfully requests that the 

Administrative Law Judge's June 11, 2014 Order Finding the Request For Hearing Untimely be 

entered onto the docket. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Alfred R. Johnson, Jr. 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

8 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this ,;2 ~·day of October, 2014, copies of the foregoing 

Agency's Response to Respondent's September 24,2014 Request For Supplemental Material 

Filing has been served upon the following via Certified Mail- Return Receipt Requested: 

OCT 2 Z014 

Dated: _____ _ 

Hearing Docket (Original and One Copy) 

Attention Hearing Docket Clerk 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington DC 20591 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Hon. J.E. Sullivan 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Ms. Mary E. Bochiardy 

1450 Sunset Point Blvd. 

Clearwater, Florida 33755 

ttomey 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

9 
Vau han, Judith (FAA) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Mr. Smith, 

Mary Bochiardy < MaryBochiardy@comcast.net> 

Tuesday, September 23, 2014 9:44 PM 

Smith, Cody (OST) 

Judith Vaughan 

RE: Follow-up & Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Proceedings 

Thank you for checking on my questions with regard to how to respond to Hon. Sullivan orders. 

I 

I 

EXHIBIT 

A 

I have opened the link provided and have no idea which of the hundreds of CFR rules apply but I appreciate your 

providing me with them all. I would need considerable time to review and understand how specifically to comply to all 

of this. 

Best wishes, 

Mary Bochiardy 

(386) 214-0414 

marybochiardy@comcast.net 

From: cody.smith@dot.gov [mailto:cody.smith@dot.gov] 

Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 4:34 PM 

To: martbochiardy@comcast.net 

Cc: judith.vaughan@faa.dot.gov 

Subject: Follow-up & Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Proceedings 

Ms. Bochiardy: 

Just to follow-up on our telephone conversation today, you can comply with Judge Sullivan's Order of September 8, 

·· 2014, by either 1) resubmitting the 6/24/14 Respondent Supplement in its entirety with pages 1, 2, and 10 signed, or 2) 

submitting signed versions of pages 1, 2, and 10 with a brief statement explaining why you are submitting them and that 

the signed pages should replace pages 1, 2, and 10 ofthe 6/24/14 Respondent Supplement 

In response to your question, the Rules of Practice are published at 14 C.F.R. Part 13, subparts C and G. They are 

accessible at, among other places, 

http://www.faa .gov /a bout/office erg/headquarters offices/age/pol ad judication/agc400/civil pen a lty/Rules/med ia/ds 

p RulesofPrac.pdf 

I have cc'd this e-mail to Ms. Vaughn just to ensure that all parties have the same procedural information. Please feel 

free to contact me with any other procedural questions. 

Cody Smith 

Attorney-Advisor 

Office of Hearings, M-20, U.S. Dep't of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. (E-11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone: 202-366-6941 

e-mail: cody.smith@dot.gov 

1 
 

ffEDSTL!TES R t '1 

STLlLSERVICE, 

eat IIEssFJRMLYrosEAL I PRIORITY MAIL POSTAGE REQUJRI p US POSTAGE PAID 

$5.75 

2 1008 

PRIORITY MAIL® 2-DAY 

Delivery Day: 09126114 

USPS TRACKING NUMBER 

1111 II II I I 

9505 511 0 6245 4267 3763 18 

ARATION 

QUIRED. 

\\\\l\ll\\\l\\ EP14F July 2013 

~OM: 

----------------

L 

PRIORITY® 

MIJIL 

UNITED STATES PDSTilL SEll VICE 

From 

Mq-2Y~ItVch n I tjSi)~u-r-Pr R.ct Clearw"-4-FL-:rnss· 

For Domestic 

and Jnternatlotial Use 

TO 0_ W::£*'-(.,\)a.,.4vt-tJ ;;;@' C(_ oC ~ nwn~l 1 Gskr N r;(e.)l"""- ")-erk( a.P (Jv 'i.uu-rrAJ m.tJ~il,(Y\ 

label22B, January 2008 

I AV,a;t, .n~21"-

0c:vma.'cr~, 0j !l'-1:34 

·~, 

--'J#"'t:"/c 

,.~~ 

f':"<"'? 

1:~ 

~ .. 

VISIT US AT USPS.COM@ ---------

,.. ....... ,...,. 

·--

-~·· ......... 

&~~!'!?;, 
Britt Bochiard 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Mary: 

Greg Reigel <greigel@aerolegalservices.com> 

Monday, November 11,2013 10:42 AM 

'Mary Bochiardy' 

RE: Update 

I 

I 

EXHIBIT 

We still need to talk about the limited options available to you at this point. I am in the office today, but then 

out of the office tomorrow and Wednesday for depositions. I will be back in the office on Thursday. 

Sooner is better than later since you will have 15 days within which to request a hearing once you actually 

receive the Notice. 

Thanks. 

Greg Reigel 

Reigel Law Firm, Ltd./ 

Aero Legal Services 

921 Mainstreet 

Hopkins, MN 55343 

Phone: (952) 238-1060 

Fax: (952) 238-1099 

wvvw.aerolegalservices.com 

Twitter: @ReigelLaw 

-----Original Message-----

From: Mary Bochiardy [mailto:MarvBochiardv@)comcast.net] 

Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 9:38AM 

To: 'Greg Reigel' 

Subject: RE: Update 

Hi Greg, 

Hope ails well with you. 

Still nothing from the FAA ...... 

-----Original Message-----

From: Greg Reigel [mailto:greigel@aerolegalservices.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 9:04AM 

To: 'Mary Bochiardy' 

Subject: RE: Update 

Mary: 

It is probably easier to discuss and answer your questions on the phone. 

Please give me a call when you get a chance. I am in the office untilwam CST this morning then out for most 

of the rest of the day. I will then be in the office all day tomorrow. 

Thanks. 

Greg Reigel 

Reigel Law Firm, Ltd./ 

Aero Legal Services 

1