In The Matter Of:· 

SERVED: June 28, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS ·, . . ·. -

WASHINGTON, PC F~~-, \',: ?Ci q~ ~'- . ~ 

Docket No. FAA-2015-0634 

IXL Premium Lubricants, Inc. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2014NM720059 

Respondent 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL DUE TO 

RESPONDENT'S CONSTRUCTIVE WITHDRAWAL 

On April 6, 2016, the undersigned judge issued an Order Directing the Parties to Meet and 

Confer Regarding Litigation and Scheduling Issues ("Meet and Confer Order"). The order 

required, inter alia, the parties to submit a joint report to the undersigned judge within 30 days of 

that order. 

On May 6, 2016, Complainant filed a unilateral report, stating that attempts to meet and 

confer with Respondent had failed. Respondent failed to submit a report or request for additional 

time before the deadline. 

On May 17, 2016, the undersigned judge issued an Order to Show Cause and Provide 

Requested Information ("Order to Show Cause"). The order required Respondent to explain the 

cause of its failure to comply with the Meet and Confer Order and provide the information 

·requested in that same order. In the Order to Show Cause, the undersigned judge advised 

Respondent that failure to participate in the proceedings may be deemed a constructive 

withdrawal of the request for hearing. 

Respondent failed to submit a report or request for additional time before the deadline. 

However, on June 1, 2016, MFR Global, Ltd., a creditor of Respondent, filed a statement 

explaining that Respondent had ceased operations. 

Discussion 

Respondent has failed to respond to documents sent by both the ALJ and the FAA attorney 

and failed to respond to multiple orders. After Respondent filed a timely answer, amended the 

answer twice, and filed an Opposition to a Motion to Strike, Respondent stopped complying with 
orders from the assigned Administrative Law Judge. Complainant filed a unilateral report on 

May 6, 2016 indicating that attempts to meet and confer with Respondent had failed due to 

Respondent's failure to respond to Complainant's counsel multiple attempts to contact 

Respondent. According to Complainant, on May 3, 2016, Complainant's counsel left a 

voicemail with the representative .of the Respondent. After receiving no response, 

Complainant's counsel called again on May 5, 2016 and spoke· with an administrative assistant 

who "confirmed receipt of the first message, stated she had passed it on to [Respondent's Head 

of Operations], and indicated she would do so again. ,J Respondent never returned this call. 

Further, Respondent has not notified either the ALJ or the FAA attorney of any change of 

address. None of the mail that has been sent to Respondent's address has been returned to the 

Office of Hearings, making it more likely than not that Respondent has received all of the recent 

orders and requests and yet has chosen not to comply. Despite receiving an Order to Show 

Cause, Respondent has not provided any reason for its failure to comply with the Meet and 

Confer Order. 

Of additional note, the statement filed by MFR Global, Ltd. suggests Respondent may no 

longer exist as a corporate entity. This makes it unlikely that Respondent will respond to future 

orders or would appear at an eventual hearing in this matter. 

Applicable Law 

Among other reasons, a Respondent may be deemed to have constructively withdrawn a 

request for a hearing if the Respondent fails to respond to a judge's orders, 2 is silent, 3 

or fails to 

appear at a hearing without good cause.4 Additionally, if a Respondent fails to respond to 

documents sent to them by the ALJ or the Complainant, then such failure shall be construed as 

an abandonment of the hearing process. 

5 

Pursuant to.14 C.P.R.§ 13.215, a party may withdraw a request for a hearing without the 

1 Agency's Resp. to Order Directing Parties to Meet and Confer Regarding Litigation and Scheduling Issues at I 

(May 16, 2016). 2 Blanks on, Docket No. CP97EA0024 (FAA Sep. 11, 1997) (ALJ found failure to respond to previous orders 

constituted constructive withdrawal), aff'd, FAA Order No. 98p21 (Oct 9, 1998). 3 See, e.g., JAL Power Supply, Docket No. CP01S00015 (FAA Aug. 7, 2001) (ALJ construed Respondent's silence 

as a constructive withdrawal ofrequest for a hearing), appeal dismissed, FAA Order No. 2002-10 (Apr. 17, 2002); 

McDermott, FAA Order No. 99-8, at 1 (August 31, 1999); Pierre, FAA Order No. 2001-8, at 5 (May 16, 2001) 4 See Instead Balloon Services, FAA Order No. 1998-23, at 3 (Nov .. 24, 1998) (affirming ALJ's decision to find 

constructive withdrawal when a party failed to appear at the hearing without good cause); Apollo A & HS Company, 

FAA Order No. 2011-4, at 4 (Jan. 14, 2011) ("Apollo's failure to appear at the hearing and to pursue its request for 

hearing without good cause constituted a constructive withdrawal of its request for hearing."). 

5 Nissen, FAA Order No. 2005-15, at 5 (Dec. 15, 2005). 
consent of the administrative law judge at any time before or during a hearing. Upon such 

withdrawal, the administrative law judge shall dismiss the case with prejudice. 

Conclusion 

Based upon a review of the record and consideration of the applicable statutes, regulations, 

and case law, the undersigned judge makes the following findings of fact: 

1. Respondent submitted a request for hearing in this matter on March 9, 2015. 

2. Respondent has been served all relevant filings, including the Meet and Confer Order 

and the Order to Show Cause. 

3. Respondent failed to comply with, or respond to, the Meet and Confer Order. 

4. Respondent was advised in the Order to Show Cause that further failure to participate 

in the proceedings may be deemed a constructive withdrawal of the request for 

hearing~ 

5. Respondent failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause. 

6. Respondent's failure to participate in the proceedings in this case constitutes a 

constructive withdrawal of Respondent's request for hearing. 

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that these proceedings are dismissed with prejudice. 6 

~;::WALD Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment: Service List 

6 The case now reverts to the Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty stage. See Apollo at 4-5. Should either party 

wish to appeal this decision, they are instructed to file a notice of appeal with the FAA decisionmaker no later than 

10 days from the service of this order. 14 C.F.R. § 13233(a). The party must also file the notice of appeal in the 

FAA Hearing Docket using the appropriate address listed in 14 C.F.R. § 13210(a). Finally, the party must perfect 

their appeal by filing, not later than 50 days from service ofthis order, an appeal brief with the FAA decisionmaker. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.233(c). 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 . 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wdght Building-Suite 2W1 0007 · 

ONE COPY 

Jordan Olsen, Head of Operations 

IXL Premium Lubricants, Inc., Respondent 

2719 North 1600 West 

Pleasant View, UT 84404 

TEL: 801-732-8885 

Glenn H. Brown, Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Enforcement Division- Western Team 

222 W. 7th A venue, Box 14 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 

TEL: 907-271-5271 

FAX: 907-271-2800 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2015-0634 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

7 Service was by U.S .. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.