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 

On December 30,2014, Respondent filed an Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time seeking a 

24-day extension of time, until February 6 in which to file an Answer, or in the alternative a 

Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment. The Answer, or in the 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 of time is not being submitted to delay the 

proceeding. Complainant has raised numerous issues that require proper responses ... [and an] 

extension of time is both necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete consideration of those 

issues." 

On December 30, 2014, Complainants submitted an Opposition to the Motion "except that 

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 

of the Respondent at the end of January in a civil lawsuit where there are common issues. It is 

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, stating that "although there have been discussions about them, no depositions have 

been scheduled as yet." 
A state lawsuit in which the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is not a party, including 

whether a deposition has been scheduled or not, is not typically considered with regard to 

requests for extensions under Part 16. Under 14 CFR § 16.1l(a), the FAA may grant extensions 

of time "where necessary or appropriate for a fair and complete hearing of matters 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 of Time is granted. 

Respondent may file its Answer, or in the alternative a Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for 

Summary Judgment, on or before February 6. 

Randall Fiertz 

Director, Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

2 

Date Issued iII vi l 0 I'( 

I 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January lit~, 2015, I caused to be placed in the United States 

mail (first class mail, postage prepaid) ~nally delivered, a true copy of the 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 of Robert E. Franz Jr. 

730 B Street 

P.O.Box62 

Springfield, OR 97477 

rfranz@franzlaw.comcastbiz.net 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Proceedings Docket 

Office of Airport Compliance, AC0-1 00 

Martin E. Hansen, Esq. 

Francis, Hansen & Martin LLP 

1148 NW Hill St. 

Bend, OR 97701 

meh@francishansen.com 

Gary Firestone, Esq. 

City of Bend City of Bend 

City Attorney's Office 

City Hall, 710 NW Wall Street 

P.O. Box 431 

Bend, OR 97709 

gfirestone@bendoregon.gov 

~v~ Claudia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis