U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION 

ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

FAA Docket No. 2015-0208 

vs. RECEIVED 

WEBGISTIX CORPORATION, 

Respondent. APR 2 0 2015 

HEARING DOCKET 

HONORABLE RICHARD GOODWIN 

ANSWER 

Webgistix Corporation ("Webgistix"), by counsel Patrick G. Byrne, Esq. and Justin A. 

Shiroff, Esq., hereby files its Answer pursuant to Rule 209 of the Rules of Practice (14 C.F.R. 

13.209), and states as follows: 

I. 

I. Webgistix admits the factual and procedural allegations set forth in Paragraph 1. 

II. 

2. Webgistix admits the factual allegations in Paragraph 2. 

3. Webgistix admits the factual allegations in Paragraph 3. 

4. Webgistix admits the factual allegations in Paragraph 4. 

5. To the extent that Paragraph 5 alleges that Webgistix knew or should have known 

that the shipment required either a Shipper's Certification or Declaration of Dangerous Goods, 

Webgistix denies the allegations. Webgistix admits the remaining factual allegations. 

6. Webgistix is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the 

allegations in Paragraph 6. 

7. Webgistix is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the 

allegations in Paragraph 7. 

8. Webgistix is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the 

21338552_1 
allegations in Paragraph 8. 

9. Webgistix is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the 

allegations in Paragraph 9. 

1 0. Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph I 0. 

11. Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 11. 

(a). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (a). 

(b). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (b). 

(c). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (c). 

(d). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (d). 

(e). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (e). 

(f). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (f). 

(g). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (g). 

12. Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 12. 

(a). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (a). 

(b). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (b). 

13. Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 13, including discrete 

subparts (a) - (d). 

(a). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (a). 

(b). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (b). 

(c). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (c). 

(d). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (d). 

14. Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 14. 

15. Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 15. 

16. Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 16. 

17. W ebgistix denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 17. 

18. Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 18. 

19. Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 19. 

20. Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 20. 

- 2-

21338552.! 
21. Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 21. 

22. Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 22. 

23. Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 23. 

III. 

24. Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 24, including discrete 

subparts (a)- (ff). 

21338552.1 

(a). 

(b). 

(c). 

(d). 

Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (a). 

Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (b). 

Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (c). 

Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (d). 

(e). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (e). 

(f). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (f). 

(g). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (g). 

(h). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (h). 

(i). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (i). 

G). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph G). 

(k). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (k). 

(l). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (l). 

(m). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (m). 

(n). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (n). 

(o). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (o). 

(p). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (p). 

(q). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (q). 

(r). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (r). 

(s). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (s). 

(t). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (t). 

(u). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (u). 

(v). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (v). 

- 3 -
(w). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (w). 

(x). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (x). 

(y). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (y). 

(z). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (z). 

(aa). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (aa). 

(bb). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (bb). 

(cc). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (cc). 

(dd). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (dd). 

(ee). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (ee). 

(ff). Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in subparagraph (ff). 

25. Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 25. 

26. Webgistix denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 26. 

Affirmative Defenses 

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5123(c), the alleged circumstances of the incident do not warrant a 

monetary civil penalty. 

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Webgistix reserves the right to amend his answer and to raise additional defenses that may 

arise during the course of this litigation. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

21338552.1 

Webgistix requests that the Administrative Law Judge: 

a) Find that Webgistix is not in violation ofDepmiment of Transportation 

Hazardous Materials Regulations; 

b) Find that Webgistix should pay no monetary civil penalty for any 

alleged violation; 

c) Enter a decision in favor ofWebgistix; 

e) Award Webgistix such other relief deemed appropriate. 

- 4-
Dated: April 17, 2015 

21338552.1 

SNELL & WILMER LLP 

By: 'ii/f.i( Pa~ yme Nevada Bar No. 7636 

Justin A. Shiroff 

Nevada Bar No. 12869 

3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100 

Las Vegas, NV 89169 

Attorneys for Webgistix Corporation 

- 5 -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Answer has been mailed this date by Federal Express 

to the following: 

Hearing Docket Clerk 

FAA, AGC-430, Suite 2W1000 

Wilbur Wright Building 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Hon. Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department ofTransporation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

Attn: Patricia Matthews) 

Rashawn Rich George 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Federal Aviation Administration, Southern 

Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

DATED Aprill7, 2015. 

21338552.1 

(Original and One Copy) 

(Sent via Federal Express and Email: 

Richard.Goodwin@dot.gov and 

Patricia.Matthews@dot.gov) 

- 6-