In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: January 6, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. FAA-2013-1078 

RENAISSANCE JET, INC. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2012EA390030 

Respondent 

ORDER DENYING 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 

On October 28, 2014, an Order Setting Second Pre-Hearing Status Conference was filed. 

On December 10, 2014, the Respondent, Renaissance Jet, Inc., filed a Motion to Dismiss 

on Grounds of Mootness. 1 

On December 10,2014, the FAA filed the Agency's Response to Motion to Dismiss on 

Grounds of Mootness. 

On December 30, 2014 the Respondent filed the Respondent's Reply to Agency's 

Response to Motion to Dismiss. 

All arguments and materials have been reviewed and considered, however, only certain 

highlights will be discussed herein. 

A. Summary of Respondent's Motion 

The Respondent moves for dismissal of the action on the grounds that it has ceased to 

exist as an "air carrier and ... corporate entity." (Mot., 1.) It argues that "the pending action is no 

longer a justiciable controversy as the issues involved have become academic." (Id.) 

1 NB: The Respondent's Motion contains the following jurisdictional caption at the top of the first page: "U.S. 

Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration". This is an error. The Office of Hearings is not 

located within the Federal Aviation Administration. The Office of Hearings is part ofthe U.S. DOT's Office of the 

Secretary, located in Washington, DC. The jurisdictional caption above should be used for all future pleadings. 
In support of its Motion, the Respondent provided documentary evidence that 

Renaissance Jet, Inc. had "dissolved on or about March 23, 2009 when it was converted to 

another business entity, Renaissance Jet LLC." (Mot., Aff. of Mark Palmer.) Furthermore, 

approximately five years later, on November 18, 2014, "Renaissance Jet, LLC was dissolved 

with no assets and liabilities" by "Articles of Dissolution that were filed with the office of the 

North Carolina Secretary of State." (!d.; Exh. 2.) The Respondent asserted, therefore, that it did 

not possess an Air Taxi Certificate and no longer operated a [Federal Aviation Regulation] 135 

charter business. Thus, "[s]ince the air carrier and the corporate entity have ceased to exist, the 

pending action is no longer a justiciable controversy as the issues involved have become 

academic." (Mot., 1.) 

In its Reply materials, the Respondent offered additional factual arguments in support of 

its motion. The Respondent asserted that the FAA's currently alleged violations were solely 

attributable to the actions of a prior business owner, after this prior owner converted 

Renaissance Jet, Inc. to the corporate form of Renaissance Jet, LLC in 2009 --without 

"inform[ing] the FAA ofthis change in ownership." (Reply, 1.) When Renaissance Jet, LLC 

was dissolved in 2014, the Respondent asserted there was no corporate successor in interest. As 

a result, any allegations associated with Renaissance Jet, Inc. or Renaissance Jet, LLC 

terminated with the dissolutions of those two corporate entities. (Reply, 1-2.) 

B. Summary of FAA's Response 

In response, the FAA first pointed out that the Respondent, Renaissance Jet, Inc., 

admitted in its March 10, 2014 Answer that it was the holder of Air Carrier Certificate Number 

3RJA276M (Resp., 1; 5/10/14 Answer, 1 ~4). This was the identical Certificate Number that 

Renaissance Jet, Inc. had been assigned in 2003, while under the ownership of the prior business 

owner. 

The FAA did not specifically acknowledge that Renaissance Jet, LLC may have existed 

as a successor corporation of Renaissance Jet, Inc., from approximately 2009 through its 

dissolution in 2014 (Resp., 1). Instead, the FAA provided documentation that showed that on 

November 12,2014, the FAA approved a name change for Air Carrier Certificate number 

3RJA276M from "Renaissance Jet, Inc." to "X8 Aviation, LLC." (Resp., 1, Exh. A-2.) While 

the FAA agreed that the current Respondent now had a new name, the FAA emphasized that the 

Page 2 of 5 
Respondent still held Air Carrier Certificate Number 3RJA276M, and its primary business 

address remained 1560 North Main Street, Suite 103, High Point, NC 27262,-- the primary 

address utilized since 2003 by the prior Renaissance Jet Inc. corporation. (Resp., 2; Exhs. A-2, 

A-3, A-4.) 

In essence, the FAA argued that a "change in name only" of the air carrier's business 

should not affect the enforcement action brought against it. (Resp. 2.) 

C. Brief Discussion 

The issue is whether the FAA's civil penalty proceeding, alleging that the Respondent 

violated certain provisions of the Federal Aviation Regulations while holding a valid Air Carrier 

Certificate, is rendered moot when the Respondent dissolves its corporate identity under state 

law, but maintains its Air Carrier Certificate under an FAA approved name change. 

It is undisputed that at the time of the alleged violations of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (i.e., September 10,2010 through January 1, 2012), as well as at the filing ofthe 

Complaint (February 10 2014), the Respondent existed and held Air Carrier Certificate number 

3RJA276M. (Compl., 1; Ans., 1.) 

"The central question of all mootness problems is whether changes in the circumstances 

that prevailed at the beginning of litigation have forestalled any occasion for meaningful relief." 

Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3533.3 (3d ed.). "Claims for 

damages and other monetary relief [including civil penalties] automatically avoid mootness, so 

long as the claim remains viable." !d. 

The Respondent did not cite to any federal or state law in support of its position that the 

dissolution of a North Carolina corporation renders the federal safety enforcement issues moot, 

or extinguished the viability of the FAA's claim for a civil penalty. Indeed, it should be noted 

that North Carolina law provides that: "The dissolution of the LLC does not ... abate or 

suspend a proceeding by or against the LLC." N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann.§ 57D-6-07(f) (West 2014). 

Additionally, the FAA Administrator has held that "[a ]ir carriers cannot be allowed to 

avoid the imposition of civil penalties commensurate with their violations by voluntarily 

Page 3 of 5 
surrendering their operating certificates." Folsom's Air Service, FAA Order No. 2008-11, at 20 

(Nov. 6, 2008). 

In its Reply, the Respondent argued that it used different aircraft, managers, and manuals, 

and that its current corporate operational structure was different from both former Renaissance 

Jet corporate entities. Thus, the Respondent was owed the benefit of corporate shield protection. 

(Reply, 2.) However, these arguments were made without supportive documentation, and only 

indirectly supported by the Affidavit of Mark Palmer, where Mr. Palmer testified that 

"Renaissance Jet, LLC was dissolved with no assets and liabilities on November 18, 2014." 

(Mot., Aff. of Mark Palmer, 1.) As a result, the Respondent's arguments exist only as argument. 

They do not offer the persuasive value that admissible evidence submitted for consideration on a 

pre-hearing dispositive motion would have offered. 2 Absent evidentiary or legal support, the 

Respondent's Motion is not well-taken. 

D. Conclusion 

In short, based on the facts available in the record at this time, it appears that the 

Respondent, in various corporate forms, has held Air Carrier Certificate number 3RJA276M 

since 2003. The Respondent has not surrendered Air Carrier Certificate number 3RJA276M, but 

instead has changed the corporate name appearing on the certificate. (Resp., 1-2, Exh. A-3.) 

If all that has legally occurred in this case has been a name change (or several name 

changes), as the FAA alleges, then such name change( s) does not moot the issues or extinguish 

the viability of the FAA's claim for a civil penalty. SeeM & R Helicopters, LLC, FAA Order No. 

2013-4 (Sept. 5, 2013). 

Based on the forgoing and pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.205(a)(1) and (6), and after 

reviewing all relevant caselaw, regulations, statutory authority, and being fully advised; 

2 For example, in a Summary Judgment Motion, a party could make such arguments and present evidentiary support 

that the opposing party could challenge or accept as being admissible and probative as evidence. 

Page 4 of 5 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The Respondent's Motion to Dismiss on Grounds ofMootness is denied. 

2. The Second Pre-Hearing Status Conference, currently set for Tuesday, January 13, 

2015, at 1:30 p.m. Eastern time is reconfirmed. The parties shall access the Conference 

by dialing 202-493-2343. 

Attachment: Service List 

Page 5 of 5 
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 Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0003 

Mr. Zachary M. Berman 

Complainant's Counsel 

ONE COPY 

Office of the Regional Counsel, Eastern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3258 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

Mr. John Adams Hodge 

Respondent's Counsel 

John Adams Hodge and Associates, LLC 

Post Office Box 25553 

Columbia, SC 292244 

TEL: 803-783-9001/803-386-1504 

FAX: 803-783-9210 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-1078 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

3 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. 4 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: John 

Adams Hodge and Associates, LLC, 136 Stonemark Lane, Suite 10, Columbia, SC 29210.