U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

lN THE MATTER OF: Docket No. FAA-2015-3320 

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, lNC .. FAA Case No. 2012S0700374 

Respondent Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan 

COMPLAINANT'S JOINT RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S 

MOTION TO CONSOLIDE PROCEEDINGS AND REQUEST FOR 

ALTERNATE HEARING VENUE AND THE COURT'S APRIL 5, 2016 ORDER 

Pursuant to Section 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(d), Complainant, by and through the 

undersigned counsel, hereby files this Joint Response to Respondent's Motion to 

Consolidate Proceedings and Request for Alternate Hearing Venue, served on April 1, 

2016, and the Court's Order served AprilS, 2016. In support of this response, 

Complainant offers the following: 

I. Consolidation 

Complainant opposes the Motion to Consolidate at this time, as it is premature to 

consider such a motion. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 42 allows for the court to 

consolidate cases that have "common questions oflaw or fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). 

While there are some issues in this matter that are common with the other two 

complaints, this is not unusual. However, the facts in each of the three complaints 

involve different incidents on different dates, with shipments that originated from 

different locations involving different hazardous materials. The complaints are only 
2 

related in that they assert UPS, Inc. violated the Hazardous Material Regulations in each 

case. Without an Answer, Complainant is unable to know what "related" issues actually 

exist and if consolidation is reasonable. Additionally, consolidation will not remove the 

obligation that UPS, Inc. has to respond to the allegations found in each of the 

complaints. Therefore, Complainant asks the court to deny the Motion to Consolidate. 

III. Venue 

Complainant consents to Respondent's request for venue in Louisville, Kentucky. 

IV. Proper Party 

The proper Respondent in this matter is United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS 

Ground). Complainant is neither claiming violations by, nor seeking a civil penalty from, 

United Parcel Service Co. (UPS Airlines). To the extent that United Parcel Service Co. 

(UPS Airlines) is inadvertently a party to this matter, Complainant moves that United 

Parcel Service Co. (UPS Airlines) be dismissed. 

Respectfully submitted this 11th day of April, 2016. 

Ryan Landers 

Attorney 

Southern Team 

Enforcement Division (AGC-300) 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that the foregoing has been mailed this date by Federal Express to: 

Federal Aviation Administration (original+ 1 copy in each case) 

600 Independence A venue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 

Administrative Law Judge J. E. Sullivan 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

Meaghan Goodwin Boyd 

meaghan.boyd@aiston.com 

Alston & Bird LLP 

1201 W. Peachtree Street 

Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3424 

FROST BROWN TODD LLC 

Winston E. Miller 

wmiller@fbtlaw.com 

Miles R. Harrison 

mharrison@fblaw.com 

400 W. Market Street, 32nd Fl. 

Louisville, KY 40202 

Paul Alp 

Crowell & Moring LLP 

1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington DC 20004-2595 

~A~&: Program Analyst 

Dated 

3