UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

THE FLIGHT SHOP, INC. d/b/a PROFESSIONAL AIR and AERO FACILITIES, LLC. Complainant,



### v.
CITY OF BEND, OREGON Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )



# ____________________________ )

ORDER FAA Docket No. 16-14-12

OnDecember 30,2014, Respondent filed an Unopposed Motion for Extension ofTime seeking a 24-day extension oftime, until February 6 in whichto file anAnswer, or inthe alternative a Motion to Dismiss and/or Motionfor Summary Judgment. The Answer, or inthe alternative a Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment, was due on January 13.
The Motion states that the "request for an extension oftime is notbeing submittedto delay the proceeding. Complainant has raised numerous issues that require proper responses
... [and an] extension oftime is bothnecessary and appropriate for a fair and complete consideration ofthose issues."
OnDecember 30, 2014, Complainants submitted an Opposition to the Motion "exceptthat Complainants would agree to provide the Respondent until January 21 to respond." Complainants state that "unbeknownst to both counsels, the parties have scheduled a deposition ofthe Respondent at the end ofJanuary in a civil lawsuit where there are common issues. Itis imperative that Complainants review Respondent's response to the Complaint before the deposition." On December 31, 2014, Respondent submitted a Motion for Leave to File Rebuttal and Rebuttal, statingthat "althoughthere have been discussions about them, no depositions have been scheduled as yet."A state lawsuit in which the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA) is not a party, including whether a deposition has been scheduled or not, is nottypically considered with regard to requests for extensions under Part 16. Under 14 CFR § 16.1l(a), the FAAmay grant extensions oftime "where necessary or appropriate for a fair and complete hearing ofmatters before the agency," and the extension sought here is both reasonable and relatively short. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: Respondent's Unopposed Motion for an Extension ofTime is granted. Respondent may file its Answer, or in the alternative a Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for SummaryJudgment, on orbefore February 6.

Randall Fiertz Director, Office ofAirport Compliance

and Management Analysis

2 Date Issued 

# iII

# vi l 0 I'( ICERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFYthat onJanuary



# lit~, 2015, I caused to be placed inthe United States mail (first class mail, postage prepaid)



## ~nally delivered, a true copy ofthe foregoing document addressed to: Attorneys for Complainants: Leonard D. Kirsch, Esq. McBreen & Kopko 500 North Broadway Jericho, NY 11753 lkirsch@mklawnyc.com Attorneys for Respondent: Pablo 0. Niiesch, Esq. Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP 1875 Eye St., N.W. Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006 pablo.nuesch@spiegelmcd.com

Robert Franz, Esq. Law Office ofRobert E. Franz Jr. 730 B Street P.O.Box62 Springfield, OR 97477 rfranz@franzlaw.comcastbiz.net

Copy to:
FAAPart 16 Proceedings Docket Office ofAirport Compliance, AC0-100 MartinE. Hansen, Esq. Francis, Hansen & Martin LLP 1148 NW Hill St. Bend, OR 97701 meh@francishansen.com

Gary Firestone, Esq. City ofBend City ofBend City Attorney's Office City Hall, 710 NW Wall Street P.O. Box 431 Bend, OR 97709 gfirestone@bendoregon.gov



# ~v~

Claudia Roberts Office ofAirport Compliance and

Management Analysis