UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATION FEDERA L AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON , DC . J&B ENTERPRISES , INC. , dlhl d RHYTH

M SHINE , Complainant , V . 

# EOED W J^ N 0 8 2009 PART1 6 DOCKET S Docket No. : 16-08-0 7

c: 3

- a C 3 METROPOLITA

N NASHVILL

E AIRPOR

T AUTHORITY , Respondent . DESIGNATIO N O F PERSO N T O RECEIV E NOTIC E Communication s t o Complainan t wit h respec t t o thi s matter

shouldb e sen

t to : Thoma s J . Henderso n Henderso n La

w Firm , PLL C Suit e 35 0 1425 K Street , N W Washington , D C 2000 5 (202 ) 587-568 7 Telephon e (202 ) 587-560 1 Facsimil e tjh@hendersonfirm.ne

t MOTIO N FO REXTENSIO N O F TIM E T O FIL E APPEA L Complainan

t J& B Enterprises , Inc. , d^/a / Rhyth mShin e (hereafte

r "Complainant " o r "J&B") , by it s counsel an

d pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § § 16.1 1 and16.19 , respectfull y request s a thirt y (30 ) da y extensio n o f

time in whic h t o appea

l th e Director' s Determinatio n in thi s matter . 1 . O n Ma

y 5 , 2009 , th e Directo r

o f th e Offic e o f

Airpor t Complianc e andFiel dOperation s entere d adeterminatio n o f J&B' s complain

t that Responden

t wa s operatin g i

n violatio n o f

4 9 C.F.R . Par t 23 , Participatio n o f

Disadvantage dBusines s Enterpris e i n Airpor t Concessions , and C.F.R . Par

t 26 , Participatio n by Disadvantage dBusines s Enterprise s i n Departmen t o f Transportatio n Financia l Assistanc e Programs . Pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F. R§ 16.33(b) , th e thirty day s fo r Complainan

t t o appea l wil l run o n Jun e 8 , 2009 .2 . Pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.11(a) , Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ("FAA" ) i s authorize d t o extend "any time perio d prescribe dwhere necessar y o r appropriat

e fo r afai r an dcomplete hearin g o f matter s befor

e th e agency. " 3 . Complainan

t respectfiill

y suggest s tha

t th e circumstance s presente dher e mak e athirt y (30 ) da y extensio n o f

tim e t o appea

l bot h "necessar

y [and ] appropriate fo

r afai r an dcomplet e hearing " o f

thi s matter . 4 . First , Complainan t ha s jus t retaine dcounsel t o handl e th e appea l o f thi s matter . Additiona l time i s necessar

y fo r ne w counsel t o familiariz e himself wit h th e recor

d and adequately prepar

e a n appeal . 5 . Second , Complainan t ha s been unrepresente din thi s matte r sinc e relatively earl

y i n th e proceedings . Thus , ne

w counsel doe s no t

hav e th e benefi

t o f th e wor k produc t o f an y existin g counsel i n analyzin g th e recor

d an d preparin g a

n appeal . 6 . Third , th e recor

d reflect s tha

t Complainan

t ha s no t previously ha

dth e assistanc e o f counsel in respondin g t o th e factua l assertion s an

dsubmission s or

th e lega l argument s o f Respondent . A s i s clea

r fi^omth e Director' s Determination , thi s matter involve s th e applicatio n o f asophisticate d set

o f regulation s andassurances , an dth e underlyin g lega

l standards , t o a

n extensiv e se

t o f facts . Providin g th e opportunit y fo r bot h partie s t o presen

t their position s wit

h th e assistanc e o f

counsel i s certainly "appropriate fo r afai r andcomplet

e hearing " of

thi s matter , an d serve s th e FAA' s interes t in interpretin g it s regulator y regime an

ddeterminin g complianc e throug h arigorous adversar y process . 7 . Fourth , th e Director' s Determinatio n i s asubstantia l lega l documen

t tha t will requir e additiona l tim e fo r prope r analysi s befor

e submittin g a

n appeal . Th

e Determinatio n i s a3 3-page , single-space d documen

t tha t identifie s an

dreache s findings andconclusion s o n fou r issues . Th e Determinatio n include s length y discussion s o f

th e factua

l assertion s andsubmission s o f th e 2partie s an

d th e Administrativ e Recor dcontain s volume s o f

4 9 exhibit s submitte dby th e partie s a s wel l a s additiona

l material s apparently obtaine dfi^omFA A files. 8 . Fifth , th e basi s fo

r an d recor d upon which th e Director' s Detominatio n wa s mad e caimo t fiilly b e examine d a

t present becaus e som

e o f th e document s include di n th e Administrativ e Recor d hav e no t

been provide d t o Complainant . Specifically , Item s 1 1 an d1 2 in th e Inde x o f Administrativ e Record , FA A Exhibi t 1 t o th e Director' s Determinatio n appea r t o b e anumbe

r o f report s an d document s fi"omth e files anddatabase s o f th e FAA . Whil e th e conten t o f thes e material s ma

y b e known t o Responden t a s th e part

y receivin g assistanc e froman dsubmittin g report s t o th e FAA , i

t i s no t known t o Complainants . The Complainan t ha s no t receivedcopie s o f thes e document s and , therefore , cannot evaluat e tha t portio n o f

th e record . Togethe

r wit h thi s motion . Complainan

t i s requestin g copie s o f

thes e document s fromth e FAA . 9 . Sixth , th e Director' s Determinatio n addresses , interpret s an ddecide s issue s o f

substantia

l importanc e t o th e FA

A ACDB E Program . Thes e include : whethe r Responden

t complied wit

h th e ACDB E contrac t

goa l an d th e manne

r i n whic h such goal s ca

n b e me t throug h join t

ventures , 4 9 C.F.R . § § 23.59 , 23.5 7 an d 23. 3 an

dDOT/FA

A Joint Ventur e Guidance ; whether Respondent' s concessio n policie s ha da n unlawftil disparate impac t o n th e basi s o f

rac e in violatio n o f

4 9 C.F.R . § § 23. 9 an d26.7(b) ; whethe

r Respondent' s concessio n policie s discriminate d o n th e basi s o f rac e i n violatio n o f

4 9 C.F.R . § § 23.9 , and26.7(a) ; and , whether th e Respondent' s action s wer e contrar y t o th e administrative , genera l o r complianc e requirement s o f

4 9 C.F.R . Part s 2 3 an

d2 6 an dFedera l Gran t Assurance s Nos . 3 0 and37 . Determination s o f

thes e issue s are o f

importanc e no t

onl y t o th e partie s t o thi s matte r but t o th e FA A an d t o airpor t authoritie s an

d concessionaire s an

dDBE s acros s th e country . Carefii l revie w o f decision s o n thes e issue s afte r fiill briefin g b y partie s represente db y counsel i s i n th e interes t o f th e FA A ACDB E Progra

mand serve s th e interest s o f justice .

\ /10 . Seventh , grantin g th e extensio n o f tim e requeste dwil l no t

caus e an y prejudic e t o th e Respondent . Indeed , Complainan t continue s t o operate a

t th e reques t

o f Respondent . Se

e Respondent' s Exhibi t

30 , Jun e 6 , 200 8 letter , p . 2 ("It i s our expectatio n J& B wil l continu e t o provide shoeshin e servic e o n amonth-to-mont h basi s unti l th e conclusio n o f th e competitiv e process.") . And , althoug h yet anothe r RF P no w ha s bee n issue dfo

r asho e shin e concessio n a t Respondent' s facilit

y (SHOE SHIN

E SERVICE CONCESSION (Poste d5/21/09 ) a t https://wwvv.flynashville.com/business/default.aspx?BD=299) , th e deadlin e fo r submission s o f proposal s i s no t

unti l Jul y 16 , 2009 {se

e Reques t fo r Proposa l packag e a

t p . 10 ) an dan y decision a s t o response s t o tha

t RFP , i f any , a s well a s conmiencemen t o f operation s by another concessionaire , i f

any , wil l no t

occu r unti l afte r tha t time . 11 . Ne w counsel fo

r Complainan

t contacte dcounsel fo r

Responden

t an drequeste dconsent

t o thi s reques t

fo r a n extensio n o f

time . Counsel fo

r Responden

t refuse dconsen t an dindicate d tha

t Responden

t would oppos e thi s motion . Becaus e counsel fo r Responden

t indicate dthat

th e motio n would b e opposed , ne w counsel fo

r Complainan

t inquire da s t o th e basi s fo r th e opposition . I

n response , counsel fo

r Responden

t indicate dtha

t J&B' s complainan

t wa s "fiivolous " an

d tha t Responden

t did no t wis h t o expen

dftuther ftinds in opposin g th e complaint . 12 . Neithe

r o f th e reason s offere

db y counsel fo

r Responden

t represen t cognizabl e "prejudice " tha

t woul d result

fromgrantin g thi s extension . Respondent' s claimtha t th e complain t i s "frivolous " i s belie d by th e Director' s Determinatio n an dit s extensiv e discussio n o f th e complaint , th e fact s an

d th e applicabl e law . The fact tha t Responden

t will incu r lega l fee s in respondin g t o a

n appea l i s no t prejudice . 12 . A review o f

th e recor d i n thi s matte

r reveal s tha

t neithe r part y ha s consentedt o an

y reques t b y th e othe r fo r extension s o f

time .13 . The recor d als o reveal s tha

t th e FAA grante dareques t b y counsel fo

r Responden

t fo r a 60-da y extensio n o f

time t o respond t o th e complaint . Se e Administrativ e Recor

dIte m5 . Th e reason s offere

d b y counsel fo

r Responden

t fo r tha t 60-da y extensio n were tha

t th e complain

t and Complainant' s exhibit s "wil l take asubstantia l amoun t o f time t o analyz e an

danswer " and tha

t "Counsel fo

r Responden

t MNA A wa s only retaine d[thre e day s earlier ] andwil l needtim e to " investigat e th e facts . Se

e Administrativ e Recor

dIte m4 , y ^ 5 , 6 . Thes e reasons , accordin g t o counsel fo r Respondent , made "a

n extension. . .necessar

y an dappropriate fo

r afai r an dcomplete hearin g o f th e matte r befor e th e FAA. " Id . a

t T I 6 . Complainan

t respectfiall

y suggest s tha

t thes e sam e reason s are presente d in thi s motion andprovide th e sam e basi s fo r th e FA A t o grant th e reques t fo r th e mor e modes t extensio n i

n thi s motion . 14 . Th e recor

d in thi s matter

als o reveal s tha

t th e FAA grante ditsel f

a n extensio n o f

tim e i n which t o decid

e thi s matter . Se

e Administrativ e Recor

dIte m1 7 "Marc h 10 , 200 9 FA A Notic e of Extensio n o f

Time, " extendin g th e time t o decide th e matte r t o Ma y 5 , 2009 . 15 . Complainan

t respectfiill

y suggest s tha

t equity , a s well a s th e interest s o f justice , require tha

t Complainan

t b e afforded thi s modes t

extensio n o f

tim e t o appea

l where bot

h th e Responden

t and th e FA A have been allowe d mor

e time i n whic h t o analyz e an

darticulate their

position s i n thi s matter . 15 . Finally , th e FA

A ha s grante d extension s o f time t o appea

l i n circumstance s simila

r t o this . See , e.g. . Platinu mAviatio n an d Platinu mJe t Center BM I v . Bloomington-Norma l Airport Authority , Docket

No . 16-06-09 , Jul

y 2 , 200 7 Orde

r fo r Extensio n o f

Tim e (grantin g complainant' s motio n fo

r extensio n o f

almos t 6 0 days , ove

r oppositio n o f

respondent , give n tha

t complainant s "di d no t

receiv e wit

h servic e th e additiona

l exhibit s whic h FA

A addedt o th e administrativ e record , an

d [existing ] counsel' s prio r conmiitments." )t J

16 . Complainan t respectfiill

y request s tha

t th e FAA expedit

e consideratio n o f

thi s motion pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.11(a

) t o decide th e motio n a s soo n a s possibl e an dbefor e th e clos e of busines s on Monda

y Jun e 8 , 2009 . In order

t o expedit

e Respondent' s promp t

respons e t o th e motion , counsel fo

r Complainan

t ha s agree dt o counsel fo

r Respondent' s reques t

tha t th e motion b e provide d t o hi

mby electroni c mail s o th e matter ca n b e ripe fo

r determinatio n prio r

t o th e curtent dat e fo r appeal . Suc

h servic e i s indicate di

n th e certificat

e o f servic e below . WHEREFORE , Complainan t J&B Enterprises , Inc. , respectfull y request s athirt

y (30 ) da y extensio n o f

time i n whic h t o appea

l th e Director' s Determinatio n i n thi s matter , pursuan

t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § § 16.1 1 and 16.19 , t o assur e a"fai r an dcomplet e hearin g o f

th e matter. " submitted . ! ^ Thomas r J . Henderso n Henderso n La

w Firm , PLLC Suit e 35 0 1425 K Street , N W Washington , D C 2000 5 (202 ) 587-568 7 Telephon e (202 ) 587-560 1 Facsimil e E-mail : tjh@hendersonfirm.ne t Counse l fo r

Complainant J& B Enterprises , Inc .

i fCERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I hereby certif

y that I hav e thi s da

y serve dth e foregoin g Motio n fo r Extensio n o f

Tim e t o Fil e Appea l o n th e following person s a t th e following addresses , electroni c mai l addresse s an

d facsimile number s by electroni c mail , facsimil e andfirst clas s mai l thi s 3r dda y o f June , 2009 : Arthu r P . Berg Kapla n Kirsc h & Rockwel l LL

P 64 1 Lexingto n Ave. , Suit

e 1409 Ne w York , Ne w Yor

k 1002 2 (212)328-951 5 Facsimil e number : (646 ) 514-544 0 E-mail address : aberg(g)kaplankirsch.com Thoma s R . Devin e Kapla n Kirsc h & Rockwell LL

P 100 1 Connecticut

Ave. , N . W . I 

### Suit e 80 0 I Washington,DC . 2003 6 / (202 ) 955-560 0 ' Facsimil e number : (202 ) 955-561 6 E-mail address : tdevine@kaplankirsch.co m Lis aReynold s Kapla n Kirsch & Rockwell LL

P 167 5 Broadway , Suit

e 230 0 Denver , C O 8020 2 (303 ) 825

- 700 0 Facsimil e number : (303 ) 825-700 5 Rober t Watson MNA A On e Termina l Drive , Suit

e 50 1 Nashville , T

N 3721 4 (615)275-163 7 Facsimil e number : (615 ) 275-430 2

Counse l fo r Complainan

t J& B Enterprises , Inc .