In The Matter Of: 

### SERVED: January 6, 2015 

### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

DocketNo. FAA-2013-1078 RENAISSANCE JET, INC. ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2012EA390030 Respondent

ORDERDENYING 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 Motionto Dismiss on Grounds ofMootness. 1 On December 10,2014,the FAA filed the Agency's Response to Motionto Dismiss on Grounds ofMootness. 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 ofRespondent's Motion The Respondent moves for dismissal ofthe action on the grounds that ithas ceased to exist as an "air carrier and

...corporate entity." (Mot., 1.) Itargues that "the pending action is no longer ajusticiablecontroversy as the issues involved have become academic." (Id.)

1NB: The Respondent's Motion contains the followingjurisdictional caption atthe top ofthe first page: "U.S. Department ofTransportation Federal Aviation Administration". This is an error. The Office ofHearings is not located within the Federal Aviation Administration. The Office ofHearings is part ofthe U.S. DOT's Office ofthe Secretary, located in Washington, DC. Thejurisdictional captionabove should be used for all future pleadings.In support ofits Motion, the Respondent provided documentary evidencethat Renaissance Jet, Inc. had "dissolved on or about March 23, 2009 when it was convertedto anotherbusiness entity, Renaissance Jet LLC." (Mot., Aff. ofMark Palmer.) Furthermore, approximately five years later, onNovember 18, 2014, "Renaissance Jet, LLC was dissolved with no assets and liabilities" by "Articles ofDissolution that were filed withthe office ofthe North Carolina Secretary ofState." (!d.; Exh. 2.) The Respondent asserted, therefore, that it did notpossess an AirTaxi Certificate and no longer operated a [Federal Aviation Regulation] 135 charter business. Thus, "[s]incethe air carrier and the corporate entity have ceasedto exist, the pending action is no longer ajusticiable 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 ofa prior business owner, after this prior owner converted Renaissance Jet, Inc. to the corporate form ofRenaissance 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 successorininterest. As aresult, any allegations associated with Renaissance Jet, Inc. or Renaissance Jet, LLC terminated with the dissolutions ofthose two corporate entities. (Reply, 1-2.) B. Summary ofFAA's Response In response, the FAA first pointed outthat the Respondent, Renaissance Jet, Inc., admitted in its March 10, 2014 Answer that it was the holder ofAir Carrier CertificateNumber 3RJA276M (Resp., 1; 5/10/14 Answer, 1**~4).** This was the identicalCertificate Numberthat Renaissance Jet, Inc. had been assigned in 2003, while under the ownership ofthe prior business owner. The FAA did not specifically acknowledge that Renaissance Jet, LLC may have existed as a successor corporation ofRenaissance Jet, Inc., from approximately 2009 through its dissolution in 2014 (Resp., 1). Instead, the FAA provided documentation that showedthat on November 12,2014,the FAA approved a name change for Air Carrier Certificate number 3RJA276M from "RenaissanceJet, Inc." to "X8 Aviation, LLC." (Resp., 1, Exh. A-2.) While the FAA agreed that the current Respondent nowhad a newname, the FAA emphasizedthatthe Page 2 of 5Respondent still held Air Carrier CertificateNumber 3RJA276M, and its primary business address remained 1560NorthMain 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" ofthe air carrier'sbusiness should not affect the enforcement action brought against it. (Resp. 2.) 

### C. BriefDiscussion The issue is whether the FAA's civil penalty proceeding, alleging that the Respondent violated certain provisions ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations while holding a valid Air Carrier Certificate, is rendered moot when the Respondent dissolves its corporate identity under state law, butmaintains its Air Carrier Certificate under an FAA approved name change. Itis undisputed that at the time ofthe alleged violations ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations (i.e., September 10,2010through 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 ofall mootness problems is whether changes inthe circumstances that prevailed at the beginning oflitigation 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 ofits positionthatthe dissolution ofa North Carolina corporation renders the federal safety enforcement issues moot, or extinguished the viability ofthe FAA's claim for a civil penalty. Indeed, it shouldbe noted thatNorth Carolina lawprovides that: "The dissolution ofthe LLC does not ... abate or suspend a proceedingby or against the LLC." N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann.§ 57D-6-07(f) (West 2014). Additionally, the FAA Administratorhas held that "[a ]ircarriers cannotbe allowed to avoid the imposition ofcivil penalties commensurate with their violations by voluntarily

Page 3 of5surrendering their operating certificates."Folsom'sAirService, FAA OrderNo. 2008-11, at 20 (Nov. 6, 2008). In its Reply, the Respondent argued that it used different aircraft, managers, and manuals, andthat its current corporate operational structure was different from bothformer Renaissance Jet corporate entities. Thus, the Respondent was owed the benefit ofcorporate shieldprotection. (Reply, 2.) However, these arguments were made without supportive documentation, and only indirectly supportedbythe Affidavit ofMarkPalmer, where Mr. Palmer testified that "Renaissance Jet, LLC was dissolved with no assets and liabilities onNovember 18, 2014." (Mot., Aff. ofMarkPalmer, 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 onthe facts available inthe record at this time, it appears thatthe 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 changedthe corporate name appearing onthe certificate. (Resp., 1-2, Exh. A-3.) Ifall that has legally occurred inthis case has been a name change (or several name changes), as the FAA alleges, then suchname change(s) doesnot mootthe issues or extinguish the viability ofthe FAA's claim for a civil penalty. SeeM& R Helicopters, LLC, FAA OrderNo. 2013-4 (Sept. 5, 2013). Based onthe forgoing and pursuantto 14 C.F.R. § 13.205(a)(1) and (6), and after reviewing all relevant caselaw, regulations, statutory authority, and being fully advised;

2For 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 of5IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Respondent's Motionto Dismiss on Grounds ofMootness is denied. 2. The Second Pre-Hearing Status Conference, currently setfor 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 of5SERVICE 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-Suite2W10003

Mr. Zachary M. Berman Complainant's Counsel ONE COPY

Office ofthe Regional Counsel, Eastern Region Federal Aviation Administration 1Aviation 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 LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey 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.