* DMS 0001/00 6 

12/29/2010 14:20 FAX 2024935142 FAA 

OEFARTMEMlp,^ Before th* U.S. DepHrtment of Transpomtion " V C V > £ / \/Pt \ 

ipAMSPORTAllO-V Federal Avutioti Administration ^^ ^ •»i«f ' 

'^^AR/WG o^sCKET 

Tn die iriatter of ) 

) Docket No. CPIOSOOOU 

M & R HELICOPTERS ) FA A Case No. 2009SO950434 

) CJiicf Judge Ronnie A. Yoder 

) 

) 

COMPLATNANT' S RESPONS E T O MARHELTCOPTKRiS' 

MOTION FOR .ILIDGMKNT TO DISMISS. FAJLLRE TO RESPOND OR MEET 

FILIINC; DEADLINES AND RFSPONDKNT'S MOl ION FOR JUDGMENT TO 

DISMISS 4 

Complainant filos this response to Respondent M <<: R Helicopters;' 

(Respondent) Motion for Judgment to Dismiga, Failure to Respond or Meet FilinK 

Deadlines and Motion for Judgment to Dismiss 4. In its Motions, Respondent alleges 

Tliiit this case should be dismis-vd, because the Complainant has not responded to 

numerous filings and letters from RespnnriRiiT. As stated below and in previous 

referenced responset;, Complainant has either rcspoadcd to these filings, or a juatifiable 

and rcason-ihlc basis exists for why it has not. Accordingly, R.espondcni's Motions lack 

merit. 

DlscuKsipn 

In its Motions, Respondent <-laims that Complainant has not responded to 

October 21, November 24, and November 27, 2010, leriers regarding alleged discovery 

requests, including a request for a hearing transcript Complainam explained why it lias 

not responded to i.hcse letters in its December 10, 2010, Respon.'sc tn M & R rielicopters' 

Motion to Quash, Strike, or Di.'imiss Complaint and Motion to Strike Allc£;Htion - Mr. 
12/29/201 0 14:2 0 FAX 202493514 2 FAA ^ DMS @002/00 G 

Baker Was Not nn ,n. Drug/AIcohoI Program at pafies 6-7, and in its December 15, 2010, 

Response to Motion for Deposition of Latonya WiUiame, Motion to Compel Di.'^covrry, 

and Motion for Judgment to Quash at pa£Rs 2-3. 

Respondent also alleges that Complainant did not file an objection or answer to 

Respondent's November 27,2010, documetit captioned "Preliminary Objections." 

Although Respondcni filed its document captioned 'Treliminflry Objections" luider 

14 C-F.R. 13.208(d), that docinneDt was in effect an answer to the complaint. 

Accordingly, it required no response from Complainant. 

Respondent also alleges that Complainant did not respond within the required 

lime to a November 29, 2010, Motion and Brief to Quash. Strike, nr Dismis.s Complaint. 

Respondent served this motion on November 30,2010 (Soe Attachment 1, Certificate of 

Service for Respondent's Motion to Quash, Strike, or Di.smisa Complaint). Complainant 

filed its response to this motion on De<-rmbeT 10, 2010, within 10 days as required under 

the Rules ofPiactice in FAA Civil Penalty Actionri. 

Respondent also alleges that Complainant did not n\spond within the required 

lime to aNovcmhrr 30, 2010, Motion to Strilce Allegation. Complainant filed its 

response to this motion on Dcrembet 10,2010, within 10 daya as required und^r the 

Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions. 

Respondent also alleges that Compl^irusnt did not respond within 10 days to a 

December 1, 2010, Motion for Deposition of Latonya Williams. Respondent did not 

need to file a motion requesting tlie Administrative Law Judge in grtuit approval for the 

deposition of Ms. Williams. Accordingly, it was not necessary tliat Complainant respond 
12/29/2010 14:20 FAX 2024935142 fhf, -> DMS 0003/008 

to that motion. Nonetheless, Complainant filed a Tespon.^e on Decesmber 15, 2010, to 

ftirther arrangements for a. deposition at a time and lor^tion mutually convfeniem for 

Ms. Williams and Respondent, 

Respondent also alleges Complainant did not respond within 10 days to a 

December 2. 2010, Motion to Compel Discovery. In its Motion to Compel Discovery, 

Respondent repealed the Mme-. ?irgiiments it made in its Motion to Quash, Strike, or 

Dismiss Complaint. Complainant had already addressed these arguments in its 

December 10, 2010, Re.sponseto M & Rllelicopter.'^' Motir>n to Quash, Strike, or 

Dismiss Complaint and Moxion to Strike Allegation - Mr. Baker Was Not on a 

Dru£/A]a>hoI Program, at pages 6-7. Complainant noted this in its December 15. 2010, 

Response to Motion for Deposition of Lrrtonya Williams, Motion to Compel Discovery, 

and Motion for Judgment to Quo-sh at pages 2-3. So, in effect, Complainant has 

responded timely to Respondent's arguments supporting its MoHon TO Coinpel 

•Discovery. 

Finally, l^rspondent states thai it does not agree to any form of continuance. 

Respondent'.-) Motion for Judgment to Dismiss 4 ai page 4. However, Complainant has 

jaot requested from the Office of Admini.':tT-?itive Law Judges a continuance in this case. 
c/,* •> DMS 01004/OOG 

12/29/201 0 14:2 0 FAX 202493514 2 FAA UMi 

If 

I WHRREFORE, Complainant rcspectfiilly requests thai the Chief AdminiaLrative 

11 

I Law Judge deny Respondent's Motion for Judgment to Dismiss, Failure to Respond or 

y 

A Meet Filing D«?rdlincs and Motion for Judgment to Dismiss 4. 

^ Respectfully submitted, 

•i Peter J. T.ynch 

is AsMstant Chief Counsel 

j^Iir- Laura Ponlo 

Attorney 

Enforcement Division, AOC-30 0 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Pbnnc: (202)267-9863 

Facsimile: (202)267-5106 

Date: Drrrmbcr 20, 2010 
•y DMS 0005/00 6 

12/29/201 0 14:2 0 FAX 202493514 2 FAA 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that on thi,-^ date. T have placed in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, 

certified rexum-reccipt, a copy of Complainant's Response to Respondent's Motion for 

•Tudgmcnt to Dismiss, Failure to Respond or Meet Filin£ Dr,?idlines and Motion for 

Judgment to Dismiss 4 Jr> the Matmr ofM & R Helicopters, Docknl No. CPl OSOOOl 1, 

addressed to: 

Dr. Michael B. Sclig 

President 

M & R Ilelicoptcra, LLC 

2045 Westgaie Dr„ Suite 205 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

In addition, 1 hfrreby certify that on this date I have sent hy thr U.S. mail, postage 

prepaid, certified retuni-rcccipt and facsimile one copy of the foregoinc di>«n.iment to: 

Tlie Honorable Ronnir- A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U,S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20. Room. E12-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S,E. 

W;=ishington, DC 20590 

Far.siTiiilc: 202-366-7536 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date 1 have sent by the U.S. mail, postage 

prepaid, certified return-receipt, the original and one copy of the foregoing document to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S,W. 

WUbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Wftshington, D,C. 205S>] 

Attn.: Hraring Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

vS^^*J^<y- ^0^1 ^ 

Dated: Decernber 20, 2010 
12/29/2010 14:21 FAX 2024935142 

FAA + DMS IgjOOB/OO b 

U.J. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

F«<i9rd Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Lolonya vj^Horns 

Complairinnts 

M SI R Hellcoptere, LLC. 

Retpondent 

FAA Case 2009SO9S0434 

V, 

IHERPRV CERTIFY that 1 hove this day sen/ed the Foregoing enWe(£): 

RESPONDENT S MOTION TO QUASH. STRIKE OK DISMISS COMPLAIMT 

RESPONDENTS BRIEF SUPPORTING THE MOTION TO QUASH. STRIKE OR DISMISS 

COMPLAINT 

upon all parties of record In ttils proceedino, in nrcordonc© v»ith the requirements of Rule 29 

puriuanr to 2B U. S. C. § 174^ . 

ServK ' first-ctos mail, Dcwtanw orePOid. addressed a-! follows: 

Federal Aviation Administrn+ion 

600 Indeperidence Av©nu©, SW 

Wilbur Wright AvenuR-Sulte 2W1000 

Washington. O.C. 20591 

Att: Hearing Dorlret Cleric, AGC-430 

Laura Ponto. feq 

Enforcement Division/AGC-300 

Office nf the Chief Counsel 

FAA 

600 Independence Avenun. SW 

Washinotop. DC 20591 

FAX 202 26/5106 

By: Sll^*^ 

fvllchael a, Selig, MD, FACC. 

28I6 0rftfifildRoaa 

Alienrowa Pa. 18104 , 'x 

6103603953 tW'TLO'M.'- ^ 

Date: ^ ^ ^ ^