i? 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

EMl:^ 

Venice Jet Center, LLC 

Complainant, 

V. 

City of Venice, Florida 

Respondent. 

JUL 2 7 lfUU9 

PART 16 DOCKETS 

FAA Docket No. 16-09-05 

<z: 

c^ 

O 

/ 

COMPLAINANT VENICE JET CENTER LLC'S 

OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR 

60-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER 

This matter arises out of a long-running dispute between Complainant Venice Jet 

Center LLC (the "VJC") and Respondent City of Venice, Florida ("Venice") over the VJC's 

right to construct additional hangars at the Venice Airport. Despite the VJC's ongoing 

efforts over approximately the last year to resolve this matter before initiating these 

proceedings, Venice has been unwilling to comply with its obligations (which obligations 

have already been recognized by the Federal Aviation Administration (the "FAA")), see 

Compl. Ex. 12, 14, 16). 

Now, Venice seeks to further delay resolution of this dispute by seeking a lengthy, 

60-day extension of the deadline for responding to the complaint, asserting that it needs 

additional time to consider and address the allegations in the complaint. See Respondent's 

Mot. for Ext. of Time to File Ans. Although the VJC does not oppose a 30-dav extension, it 

opposes the requested 60-day extension because (1) it would significantly prejudice the VJC 
.'« \ 

and hundreds of non-parties and (2) Venice has not shown an adequate ground for the 

lengthy extension it has requested. 

The VJC currently is in federal receivership,' and its receiver (the "Receiver") is 

actively seeking to sell the VJC to ultimately distribute proceeds of the sale to hundreds of 

investors who were defrauded out of hundreds of millions of dollars by the VJC's previous 

owner. The lengthy extension sought by Venice would prejudice the VJC and the defrauded 

non-parties by requiring the Receiver to either sell it before this dispute is resolved, which 

would negatively impact the sale price; or delay its sale despite having identified parties who 

are interested in acquiring it at this time. 

Further, for the reasons listed below Venice has not asserted an adequate ground for 

the requested lengthy extension. 

• First, although the VJC filed its Part 16 Complaint in this matter on July 2, 

2009, the dispute underlying this proceeding has been pending for 

approximatelv one year, and thus Respondent is intimately familiar with all 

issues addressed in the complaint in this proceeding. 

• Second, although Respondent's counsel claims it did not receive the 

complaint in this proceeding unfil July 20, 2009, the VJC delivered a courtesy 

copy of the complaint to Venice's City Attorney, Robert Anderson, on July 1, 

2009. the day before it was filed with the FAA. 

• Third, although Respondent's counsel asserts that it needs additional time to 

review and consider the complaint because it was retained only recently, in 

reality counsel has been infimately familiar with this dispute since at least 

December of 2008. On December 23, 2008, it gave Venice a written opinion 

' The VJC is part of a federal receivership created in SEC v. Arthur Nadel et al. Case 

No. 8:09-cv-87-T-26TBM (M.D. Fla.), a case arising out of a large fraudulent investment 

scheme operated by Arthur Nadel through a series of hedge fiinds, which defrauded hundreds 

of investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars. Burton W. Wiand was appointed 

Receiver over the Venice Jet Center, LLC on June 23, 2009. 
(which, significantly, recognized the rights VJC seeks to enforce through this 

proceeding), and presumably it conducted a thorough investigation prior to 

that time. 

In short, Venice (or its counsel) has not demonstrated an adequate ground for its 

requested 60-day extension. Any need for the lengthy extension results exclusively from its 

dilatory and non-diligent actions and conduct. In light of Venice's lack of diligence and the 

significant prejudicial effect the requested 60-day extension would have on both the VJC and 

hundreds of non-parties, the VJC respectfijlly requests that the FAA deny Venice's request 

for a 60-day extension of time for responding to the VJC's complaint. The VJC (and its 

Receiver) does not object to a 30-day extension of Venice's deadline for responding to the 

complaint. 

For these reasons, the FAA should deny Respondent's Motion for Extension of Time 

to File Answer and grant it no-more than a 30-day extension of that deadline. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that 1 have served the foregoing on the following persons at the 

following address by overnight mail on JulyQT, 2009: 

Office of the Chief Counsel Jonathan Cross 

Attn: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Manager 

Docket, AGC-610 Airports and Environmental Law division 

Room 925 Federal Aviation Administration 

Federal Aviation Administrafion 800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20591 

Washington, DC 20591 Facsimile (202) 267-5769 

Original and 3 copies by overnight 1 Copy 

delivery 
I hereby fiirther certify that I have served the foregoing on the following persons at 

the following address by overnight mail and facsimile on July ^Q_, 2009: 

Thomas R. Devine 

Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP 

1001 Connecticut Ave. NW, Ste. 800 

Washington, DC 20036 

Telephone: (202) 955-5600 

Facsimile (202) 955-5616 

Robert C. Anderson 

Hall & Anderson, P.A 

1314 East Venice Avenue, Suite E 

Venice, Florida 34285 A 

Facsimile: 941.480.1446 .'/ 

Giaiiluca I^40rell6, FBN 034997 

Giaiiluca.morello@fowlerwhite.com 

Dofninique Pearlman, FBN 0044135 

)ominique. Pearlman@fowlerwhite.com 

'FOWLER WHITE BOGGS, P.A. 

501 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1700 

Tampa, FL 33602 

Phone(813)228-7411 

Fax (813) 229-8313 

Attorneys for the Complainant, Venice Jet 

Center, LLC 

41805172vl