# r s

UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORT I FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D.C . J& B ENTERPRISES , INC . d/b/a . RHYTH M SHINE , Complainant , V FA A Docke t No . 16-08-0 7 METROPOLITA N NASHVILL E AIRPOR T AUTHORITY , Respondent . RESPONDEN T METROPOLITA NNASHVILL EAIRPOR T AUTHORITY' S ANSWE RI N OPPOSITIO N T O COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO NFO REXTENSIO N O FTIM ET O FIL EAPPEA L Th e motio nb y Complainan t J& B Enterprise s Inc . for a nextensio no f

tim e t o file it s appeal shoul db e denie dfor amultitud e o f

reasons : 1 . Complainan t

provide s absolutel y n o explanatio nfor it s decisio nt o wai t

unti l shortl y befor e it s appea l wa s du e t o retai ncounsel , despit e th e fac t that th e May 5 , 200 9 Director' s Determinatio nexplicitl y put Complainan t

o nnotic e that

i t mus t appeal withi n thirt y days . Director' s Determination , Docke t No . 16-08-07 , May 5 , 200 9 ("Director' s Determination" ) a t 33 . 2 . Complainan t

ha s ahistory o f

filing untimel y mofions . O nDecembe r 11 , 2009 , mor e tha n 3 0 day s after

aRepl y was due . Counse l fo r Complainan t

filed areques t for a n extensio n o f

tim e t o fil e aReply . I ndenyin g th e request , th e FA A noted , amon g othe r

things , that

"Complainant' s counse l faile dt o provid e anexplanatio n for th e length y delay i n filing th e reques t for a nextensio no f

time. " FA A Order , Docke t No . 16-08-0 7 date d1/8/0 9 ("FA A Order , 1/8/09") , pp . 1-2 . 3 . Th e clai mthat

Complainan t

ha s bee nunrepresente dsinc e "relativel y earl y i nth e proceedings " i s demonstrabl y false . J& B Enterprise s Inc.' s Motio nfo r Extensio n o f Tim e ("J& B Motion") , 1 | 5 . O nDecembe r 11 , 2008 , mor e thanfou

r month s afte r th e proceedin g wa s commence dan dmor e thanamonthafter Responden t ha dsubmitte dit s answerin g papers . Complainant' s origina l counse l filed amotio n for a n extensio n o f

tim e t o file aReply . Moreover , i nit s Decembe r 11 , 200 8 submission , counse l for

Complainan t

state dthat

"th e Complainan t

ha s retaine d counse l t o replac e [him]. " FA A Order , 1/8/09 , p . 1 . ••-'C 5 Er- f c 5

# r s

4 . Th e clai mthat

ne w counse l doe s no t

hav e th e benefi t

o f th e wor k produc t o f prio r counse l i s demonstrabl y false . J& B Motion , ^ 5 . Pursuan t t o § 16.2 3 (b) . Complainan t

mus t submi t it s entir e cas e withit s complaint , whic hi s inth e possessio n o f

ne w counsel . 5 . Th e clai mthat

ther e ha s no t

bee na"fai r

an dcomplet e hearing " i s demonstrabl y false . J& B Motion , ^ ^ 3 , 6 . Complainant' s Motion for Extensio no f

Tim e suggest s that

th e FA A ha s no t

yet properl y hear dbothside s o f th e story - that onl y th e Authority , an dnot Complainant , ha s ha dth e opportunity t o presen t it s positio n t o th e FA A "withth e assistanc e o f counsel. " J& B Motion , T j 6 . However , th e suggestio n that Complainan t

ha s not ye t presente dit s positio n"with th e assistanc e o f

counsel " i s belie db y th e Complain t i nthi s matter . J& B Enterprise s wa s represente db y counse l whe ni t filedit s Complaint , apleadin g whic hwas require dt o "presen t al l relevan t

fact s an dargument s necessary " t o it s case . § 16.29 . Givin g th e Complainan t anothe r bit e a t th e appl e thi s lat e i nth e proces s i s no t

require di n orde r

t o allo w "bothpartie s t o presen t thei r position s wit hth e assistanc e o f

counsel " o r

t o achiev e a"fai r

an dcomplet e hearing. " J& B Motion , T I 6 . Thi s "justification " fo r a nextensio no f

tim e shoul db e rejected . 6 . Complainant' s failure t o Repl y t o th e Authority' s Answe r a t th e appropriat e tim e doe s no t entitl e i t t o restart th e proceeding s a

t that stag e now , a s Complainant' s Counse l apparentl y intends . A s note dabove , unde r § 16.23(b ) Complainan t

was require dt o submi t

it s entir e cas e withit s Complaint . Als o pursuan t t o § 16.23(g) , Responden t

was require dt o submi t

it s entir e defens e withit s Answer . Unde r § 16.23(e) , aRepl y i s optional , an d"[i] nrenderin g it s decision , th e FA A ma y rel y entirel y o n th e complain t

an dth e responsiv e pleadings. " § 16.29(b)(1) ; FA A Order , 1/8/09 , p . 2 . Th e investigatio nher e ha s bee ncompleted , aDirector' s Determinatio n ha s bee n issued , an dth e proceedin g canno t b e retrie do nappeal . A t thi s point , unde r

th e Part 1 6 rules , th e Complainan t ma y onl y rais e issue s with respec t t o th e Director' s Determinatio nissue do nMa y 5 , 2009 . § 16.33(b) . I t woul db e imprope r

for th e agenc y t o allo w Complainan t t o file now , i nessence , a Repl y t o th e Authority' s Answer . Thus , thi s "justification " for Complainant' s motio n for

extensio n o f

tim e shoul db e rejected . 7 . Complainan t

attempt s t o bolste r

it s so-calle d"justification " for a nextensio no f tim e b y assertin g that

ther e ar e importan t

nationa l polic y implication s involve di n thi s Proceeding . J& B Motion , T | 9 . First , FAA' s rol e i nthi s Part 1 6 Proceeding i s t o determin e whethe r

th e Authority i s i ncomplianc e withit s federal statutory an d gran t obligations . Director' s Determinatio na t 17 . Thi s i s tacitl y acknowledge d i n Complainant' s recitatio n o f th e issue s allegedly "o f

substantia l importanc e t o th e FA A ACDB EProgram, " t o wit , "whethe r th e Responden t

complie dwithth e ACDB Econtrac t

goal. . .whethe r

Respondent' s concessio npolicie s ha da n unlawfu l disparat e impac t o nth e basi s o f

rac e .. . whethe r

Respondent' s concessio n policie s discriminate do nth e basi s o f rac e . . . ; an dwhethe r Respondent' s action s wer e contrary t o th e administrative , genera l o r complianc e

# f % requirements " o f

applicabl e regulation s an dgran t assurances . J& B Motion , ^ 9 . Second , a s Complainan t

elsewher e acknowledges , th e Director' s Determinatio n involve s "th e applicatio n o f asophisticate dse t

o f regulation s an dassurances , an d th e underlyin g lega l standards , t o a nextensiv e se t o f facts. " J& B Motion , ^ 6 , emphasi s added . Th e la w in thi s are ai s wel l established . What i s involve dher e i s th e applicatio n o f

wel l establishe dlaw t o th e very specifi c factual circumstance s surroundin g thi s matte r

a t Nashvill e Internationa l Airport . Th e onl y partie s a t interes t are J& B an dth e Authority , a s evidence db y th e fac t tha t th e Part 1 6 rule s d o no t provid e for

participatio nb y an y othe r partie s at thi s stag e o f

aPart 1 6 Proceeding . Thus , contrary t o Complainant' s clai mthi s cas e doe s no t hav e importan t nationa l polic y implications . Thus , thi s "justification " for Complainant' s motio n for extensio no f

tim e shoul db e rejected . 8 . Contrary t o Complainant' s assertion . Responden t wil l b e prejudice db y a

n extensio n o f

time becaus e th e existenc e o f thi s proceedin g i s aclou dbothover th e airport' s ACDB Eprogra man dit s effort s t o contrac t for asho e shin e concessionaire . Complainan t claim s that

ther e i s n o prejudic e sinc e th e deadlin e for response s t o th e sho e shin e concessio nRF Pi s no t unti l Jul y 16 , 2009 . However , eve n i f

Complainan t

submitte dit s appeal prio r t o Jul y 16 , 2009 , Respondent' s answerin g paper s an dadecisio nb y th e FA A woul db e submitte d substantiall y afte

r Jul y 16 , 2009 . 9 . Th e Jul y 16 , 200 9 deadlin e RF Pi s th e secon dRF Pfo r sho e shin e service s issue d b y Responden t

sinc e th e terminatio no f

Complainant' s contract . Th e first RF P receive dinsufficien t

responses , includin g n o respons e b y Complainant . 10 . Complainan t

assert s that

"neithe r o f th e reason s offere db y counse l [i natelephon e conversatio n i n whic hComplainant' s counse l sough t consen t t o it s motion ] represen t cognizabl e 'prejudice ' that woul dresul t

fi-omgrantin g thi s extension. " J& B Motion , T

f 12 . Th e Authority' s counse l wa s unde r n o obligatio nt o provid e th e Authority' s lega l basi s fo r opposin g amotio nthat

ha dnot ye t bee nfiled. Indeed , i t i s th e proponen t

o f amotio nwh o bear s th e burde no f justifyin g th e motion ; Complainan t

ha s provide dn o vali djustificatio nfor it s motio nhere , a s thi s Answe r

i n Oppositio n b y th e Authorit y point s out . 11 . Complainant' s citatio n o f Platinu mAviatio nan dPlatinu mJe t Cente r BM I v . Bloomington-Norma l Airpor t Authority , Docke t

No . 16-06-09 , Jul y 2 , 200 7 Orde r for Extensio n o f

Time , i s unavailing . First , here , unlik e i nPlatinu mAviation , ther e ha s bee n n o claim , muc hles s an y demonstration , o f "counsel' s prio r commitments " that

woul dpreclud e atimel y appeal . Second , Complainan t ha s provide dn o explanatio n a s t o wh y i t di dno t seek , upo nComplainant' s receip t o f th e Director' s Determination , copie s o f th e additiona l exhibit s t o th e Director' s Determination , whic hi t

no w claim s i t

mus t examine .

# f %

12 . Finally , grantin g a n extensio no f

tim e t o appea l thi s proceedin g wil l unnecessaril y wast e th e tim e an dresource s o f bothth e FA A an dRespondent . A s note db y th e Directo r i n hi s comprehensiv e Determination : "Responden t mad e extraordinary effort s t o resolv e th e dispute s betwee nth e Complainan t an dHudson , an dt o otherwis e accommodat e th e Complainant' s concerns " an dth e ACDB Eprogra m "doe s no t giv e th e Complainan t

aperpetua l right

t o operat e th e shoeshin e concessio n withou t

competin g for

suc haright. Director' s Determinatio na t 31-32 . Respectfiill y submitte dthi s 8t hda y o f June , 2009 :

Robert Watso n Metropolita n Nashvill e Airport Authorit y On e Termina l Drive , Suit e 50 1 Nashville , TN3721 4 Telephone : (615 ) 275-163 7 Facsimile : (615)275-430 2 tnu r P . Ber g KAPLA NKIRSC H & ROCKWEL LLLP 64 1 Lexingto nAve . Suit e 140 9 New York , N Y 1002 2 Telephone : (212 ) 328-951 5 Facsimile : (646)514-544 0 Thoma s Devin e KAPLA N KIRSC H & ROCKWEL LLL P 100 1 Connecticu t

Av e NW , Suit e 80 0 Washington , D C 2003 6 Telephone : (202 ) 955-560 0 Facsimile : (202 ) 955-561 6 Lis aReynold s KAPLA NKIRSC H & ROCKWEL LLL P 167 5 Broadway , Suit e 230 0 Denver , C O 8020 2 Telephone : (303 ) 825-700 0 Facsimile : (303 ) 825-700 5 Counse l fo r

Responden t

Metropolita nNashvill e Airpor t Authorit yCERTIFICAT EO FSERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y that I hav e thi s day serve datru e cop y o f th e foregoin g RESPONDEN T METROPOLITA N NASHVILL EAIRPOR T AUTHORITY' S ANSWE RI N OPPOSITIO N T O COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO NFO REXTENSIO NO FTIM E T O FIL EAPPEA Lo n th e followin g partie s a t th e followin g addresse s b y overnigh t mai l thi s 8t

hday o f June , 2009 :

Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l (origina l an dthre e copies ) ATTN : FA A Part

1 6 Airport

Proceeding s Docket , AG C - 61 0 Roo m92 5 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Federa l Expres s No . 797 6 603 9 358 0 ElizabethNewma n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Roo m923- M 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Federa l Expres s No . 797 6 604 0 822 3 Thoma s J . Henderso n Henderso n La w Firm , PLL C Suit e 35 0 142 5 K Street , N W Washingto n D C 2000 5 Federa l Expres s No . 796 6 730 6 147 7

Dan aLoos e fo r Metropolita nNashvill e Airport Authority