### SERVED: September 6, 2016 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

In The Matter Of: ) ) ) ) ) 

### DocketNo. FAA-2015-1322 EXTREME ENERGY SOLUTIONS, INC. Respondent Case No. 2015NM730008



### ORDERFINDING GOOD CAUSE, ACCEPTING ANSWER, AND GRANTING/DENYING OTHERRELIEF
On July 3, 2015, an Order Setting a Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, and Directing the Parties to Confer and File a Rule 26(f) Proposed Discovery Plan was filed. Approximately two months later, on September 1'1, 2015, 1

### the FAA filed the Agency's Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted and for a Decision Regarding the Violations ("Motion"). One month later, on October 7, 2015, the FAA filed the Agency's Report Regarding Rule 26(f) Meeting ofthe Parties. One day later, on October 8, 2015, the

### prose Respondent, Extreme Energy Solutions, Inc., filed a Motion to Postpone Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, and Directing the Parties to Confer and File a Rule 26(f) Proposed Discovery Plan; and a Response to Agencies [sic] Rule 26(f) Meeting ofthe Parties; and Joint Motionto Postpone Matter. Among other things, the Respondentrequestedthatthe Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, set for October 15,2015,be postponed to February 2016, in part because ofa separate litigation in which the Respondent was involved.

1The FAA's Motion was date-stamped received by the Court on September II, 2015. As provided in the July 31, 2015 Order Setting a Rule 16 Litigation Conference, documents in this litigation are referenced by the date they are date-stamped received at the Office ofHearings. (July 31, 2015 Order, 2**~** 4.)Later that same day, on October 8, 2015, the FAA filed an Addendum to Report Regarding Rule 

### 26(f) Meeting ofthe Parties [sic]. The FAA agreed to continuethe Rule 

### 16 Litigation Scheduling Conferenceto November 17, 2015. On October 14, 2015, an OrderContinuingthe Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, and Deferringthe Rule 26(f) Jointly Proposed Discovery Plan was filed, which granted a continuance ofthe Rule 16 Conference to November 17, 2015. On October 19, 2015, an Order Reserving the Respondent's Motion for a Stay of Proceedings and Granting/Denying Other Reliefwas filed. OnTuesday, November 17, 2015, the FAA and the Respondent convened by telephone for a Rule 

### 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference. During this Conference, the Court explained the rule for filing a timely answertothe Complaint, and the requirement ofgood cause showing for any untimely answer. Theparties orally agreed to a pleadings schedule on the FAA's September 11, 2015 Motion. OnNovember 18,2015, an Order Setting Deadline for the Respondent to Respond and Show Cause, and Ruling on OtherReliefwas filed. On December 15, 2015, theprose Respondent, ExtremeEnergy Solutions, Inc., filed the following: a) Respondent's Answerto FAA's September 11,2015 Motion ("Response"); b) Respondent's Answerto FAA'sJune 9, 2015 Complaint ("Answer"); c) Motion for Request for Discovery ofOath ofOffice ("Motion for Discovery"); and d) Notice ofAcceptance of Constitutions and ofOathofOffice ("Notice ofAcceptance"). OnDecember 17,2015, an Order Reconfirming the FAA's Reply Deadline, Providing Direction on Proper Service, andDenyingthe Respondent's Motionto Supplantthe Court was filed. OnJanuary 4, 2016, the FAA filed a Complainant's Reply to Respondent's Answer to FAA's September 11,2015 Motion ("Reply").

Page 2 of 13

### I. 

### INTRODUCTION A. FAA Rules ofPractice- Timely Answer or Good Cause Showing Required The FAA's Rules ofPractice require a respondent to file a timely answer after service of the FAA's complaint. 14 C.P.R.§ 13.209. At the most, a responding party has 35 days to file a timely answer after service ofa Complaint.2 Ifan answer is filed beyond the 35 day period, the responding party who has filed a late answerto a Complaintmaypetition for relieffrom a default action. Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(f), in support ofits request for relieffrom a default action, the responding party must demonstrate good cause grounds. "A showing ofgood cause is mandatory. Without it failure to file an answer by the deadline may not be excused." GlobalPeace Initiative, Inc., FAA OrderNo. 2008-8 at 6 (Aug. 21, 2008) (quotingAtlantic WorldAirways, FAA OrderNo. 1995-28 at 4 (Dec. 19, 1995). B. Undisputed- Respondent Failed to File a Timely Answer The FAA asserts that it served the Respondent on June 9, 2015 at its address ofrecord, by certified mail, with its Complaint. (Mot. 1.) The Complaint was enclosed with a three-page Letter, dated June 9, 2015. Inthis Letter the FAA attorney outlined a history ofattempted interactions with the Respondent afterboth service ofthe Proposed Notice ofCivil Penalty (Mot., Ex. B, 1-2), as well as after service ofa Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty (Mot., Ex. B, 2). The FAA referenced the Complaint in this Letter, but also encouraged the Respondent to engage in informal resolution ofthe case. (Id.) According to the FAA, this combined certified mailing ofboth the June 9, 2015 Letter and the Complaint was accepted onbehalfofthe Respondent by a "Joe Mel" on June 19,2015. (Mot., Ex.B.) The FAA asserts that July 14,2015, was the last day the Respondent could have filed a timely Answer. (Mot. 2.) The FAA requests in its September 11, 2015 Motion that "each allegation in Sections I and II ofthe complaint" be deemed admitted, for failure ofthe Respondent to file a timely Answerto the Complaint. (Mot. 1.) Althoughthe FAA has proposed

2 Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(a), a respondent is allowed 30 days after service ofthe complaint to file a written answer to the complaint. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.21l(e), five additional days are added to the 30 day time period whenever a complaint is served by mail. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.212(b), the date ofservice is not included in the calculation oftime. Page 3 of 13a total civil penalty amount of$19,400 in its Complaint (Compl., 8,

**~** IV), it has not requested a default finding on that portion ofthe allegations. In its December 15, 2015

**Res~onse,** theproseRespondent did not dispute that "Joe Mel" was an individual authorizedby it to accept mailings, orthat it had received the Complaint on June 19, 2015. The Respondent also did not dispute the FAA's assertion that July 14, 2015, was the last day to file a timely Answer.3 Instead, as part ofits December 15, 2015 Response, thepro se Respondent filed an Answerto the FAA'sJune 9, 2015 Complaint, and multiple reasons for its untimely Answer. C. Issue- Has RespondentDemonstrated Good Cause for Untimely Answer Based on the parties' subrHi'ssions, the issue in this particular case is whetherthe Respondent has presented good

**~ause** for its failure to file a'timely Answerto the FAA'sJune 9, 2015 Complaint. Ifthe Respondent does not demonstrate good cause, then the merits ofthe dispute may not be reached, and\each allegation contained in the Complaint shall be deemed admitted. 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(f):· · D. Good Cause Standard· As the FAA recognized in its Reply, good cause is a "nebulous" standard. (Reply, 3.) See, 21A Fed. Proc. L.Ed. 

### § 51:64

**(20'1~).** Itis an evaluationthat rests within the discretion ofthe trial court, since there is aprefere't'l'c-e for deciding cases on their merits. 1 OA Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2693 (3d ed. 2014); See, e.g., Cornwall, FAA OrderNo. 92-47 at 7 (July 22, 1992) (Whereverpossible, cases should be heard "on the merits"). 4 A more detailed discussion ofthe factors included in a ''good cause" evaluation is contained in the November 18, 2015 Order Setting Deadline for the Respondent to Respond and Show Cause, and Ruling on Other·.Relief, which is hereby incorporated by reference.

3The FAA's calculation ofJuly 14,2015appears to be in error, since it counts the date ofservice in its calculation. Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. § 13.212(b), the date ofservice is not included in the calculation oftime. However, this one day calculation error is not material to the decision herein.
4 A more detailed discussion ofthe factors included in a "good cause" evaluation is contained in the November 18, 2015 Order SettingDeadline for the Respondent to Respond and Show Cause, and Ruling on Other Relief, which is adopted by reference herein. Page 4 of 13

### II. DISCUSSION All pleadings and arguments submitted by both parties were fully considered. However, only certain matters will be highlighted in this discussion. 

### Itappears undisputed that last year, on February 19,2015, the FAA served Mr. Burlum with aNotice ofProposed Civil Penalty ("NPCP"). (Mot., Ex. B, 1.) Shortly thereafter, on March 17,2015,the Respondent timely served the FAA (i.e., within 30 days ofreceipt ofthe NPCP), with a written response, denying the allegations and raising affirmative defenses (/d.) Thereafter, attempts bythe FAA and the Respondent to informally resolve the matter were not successful. (Mot., Ex. B, 1-2.) As aresult, on May 22, 2015, the FAA issued a Final Notice of t'

.. :,: Proposed Civil Penalty ("FNPCP"). (!d. at 2.) On June 1, 2015, the Respondent timely responded to the FNPCP by serving the FAA with a Request for Hearing. The FAAthen promptly served the Respondent eight days later, on June 9, 2015, with a three (3) page Letter and an eight (8) page Complaint. Attached to the Complaint was a one (1) page Certificate ofService ("Certificate"), identified as page "9" ofthe Complaint. The Certificate included two paragraphs at the top ofthe page, which stated in part: [a] respondent shall file a written answerto the complaint
... or may file a written motion [to dismiss] the complaint instead offiling an answer, not laterthan 30 days after service ofthe complaint." (Compl., 9.) The Respondent did not file atimely answer to the Complaint on orbefore July 15, 2015. Shortly thereafter, on July 31, 2015, an Order Setting a Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, and Directingthe Parties to Confer and File a Rule 26(t) Proposed Discovery Plan was filed. The Discovery Plan filing deadline was October 8, 2015. Six weeks later, the FAA filed its Motion. The Respondent did not respond within ten days, as required by 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(d). Thereafter, neither party took action until the week ofOctober 8, 2015, when they unsuccessfully tried to contact each otherto conduct a Rule 26(t) . 5 meeting.

5 See October7, 2015 Agency's Report Regarding Rule 26(t) Meeting ofthe Parties; and, October 8, 2015 Respondent's Response Page 5 of 13OnOctober 8, 2015, the Respondent's owner and lay representative, Mr. Burlum, filed two motions6 seeking postponement, citing as grounds his family court case, limited funds, lack ofcounsel, and lack ofpersonal expertise. The Respondent's Motion for a Continuance ofthe Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference was partially granted,7while the Respondent's Motion for a Stay ofProceedings was reserved.8 On November 17, 2015, the parties appeared for the Litigation Scheduling Conference. Duringthis Conference, Mr. Burlum orallyprovided additional information about the multiple challenges he had beentrying**.~o**;f4?ress, which included a contested litigation involving the disputed custodial**arrangement~.fqr**his three (3) year old child. (11117/15 Tr. 13-15.) Mr.

•,,; ,I Burlum stated that the family**li~ig~tion** had been active for approximately one (1) year. (Id. at
'·, !, ·.·' 15.) The case was "very**adversari~l"** and had put hisjob injeopardy. 

### (ld. at 14.) During this one yearperiod, his company's staffhadbeen "cutin half," management resources had been lost, and he was trying to the do the work of"two or three people"to keep his company viable. (/d. at 16.) The Court explained the time limitation for filing an answer, as well as the need for the Respondent to respond to the FAA'sMotion, file an answer to the Complaint, and submit a request for a good cause exceptioi);·
. )·,. 1•,1 One day later, on a November 17, 2015, an Order Setting Deadline for the Respondent to Respond and Show Cause, and Ruling on OtherReliefwas filed. Subsequently, in his written December 15, 2015 Response, Mr. Burlum, explained that he had not intentionally violatedthe procedural rules. He was inexperienced with the proceedings. He was not "atrained legal counsel" and had been "un[a]ware" ofthe time requirements.9 (Resp.

6 On October 8, 2015, theprose**Respond~nt** filed a Motion to Postpone Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, and Directingthe Parties to Conferand File a Rule 26(t) Proposed Discovery Plan; and a Response to Agencies [sic] Rule 26(f) Meeting ofthe Parties ("Motioh"), which included a request that the entire action be postponed (i.e., "stayed") until January 15, 2016 orafter, in orderto give it time to address its family court case, and to obtain attorney representation on the FAA civilpenalty proceeding ("Motion to Stay").
7See October 14, 2015 OrderContinuingthe Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference and Deferring the Rule 26(t) Jointly Proposed Discovery Plan.
8 See October 19,2015 OrderReserving the Respondent's Motion for a Stay ofProceedings and Grant/Denying other Reiief.
9 It is undisputed that Mr. Burlum is the Respondent's President and CEO. See, FAA's October7, 2015 Report Regarding Rule 26(f) Meeting ofthe Parties. Page 6 of 132.) He did nothave a "clearunderstanding ofthe process." (!d.) Mr. Burlum also asserted that he had already "in-fact [sic] respond[ed]" to the FAA's allegations when he had filed a "Response" with FAA Attorney Ms. Cheryl Jones on March 17, 2015. (Resp. 1-2.) Mr. Burlum pointed out he had also already advised the FAA that he was "engaged in another unrelated legal matter" and that the "burden ofboth matters in litigation at the same time" was an undue burden. (Resp. 2.) A. Warning Language Provided

In support ofits Motion, th'e FAA argues;in part, that the Respondent's failure to file a timely answer is not excusable;

**;bee~**use the FAA gave clearwarnings to the Respondent about its time obligations. While it is truethatthe

### F 

## A:;A providedtwo warnings in its communications, it is not persuasive that these two warnings were clearly provided. For example, the FAA asserts that its June 9, 2015 Letter was a "cover letter" for the enclosed Complaint, and as such, clearly gave notice to the Respondent ofthe time requirements for an answer. (Reply, 2.) This is.not persuasive, given that most ofthe content ofthe three (3) page Letterhad nothingto do

**~lth** the enclosed Complaint orthe Respondent'stime limits for answering. Forexample, page one (1) ofthe FAA'sJune 9, 2015 Letterdid not identify the Complaint by a reference line, nor does it even mentionthe Complaint within its opening paragraphs. In fact, the Complaintis not mentioned on page one (1) at all. Instead the FAA's June 9, 2015 Letterbriefly references it as enclosed in the middle ofpagetwo (2), with a short explanation ofthe need to file a timely answer. (Mot., Ex. B, 2, 

### ,-r,-r 4-5.) Thereafter, the FAA utilizes its Letter to encourage the Respondent to continue to try to work with the FAA to informally settle the case, with no 'time limits identified (or distinguished). (Mot., Ex. B, 2.) In addition, the FAA's eight (8) page Complaint, signed by the FAA counsel, does not carry any warning regarding the need for a timely Answer, orthe danger ofdefault for the lack ofa timely Answer. Instead, a briefwarning is inserted onthe top ofthe attached Certificate of Service. (Compl., 9.) The FAAbriefly argues-unpersuasively-thatits' Certificate ofService, attached to the Complaint, is "page 9" ofthe Complaint. (Reply, 2.) Itis noteworthy that the
Page 7 of 13FAA did notprovide any legal argument or authority for the general propositionthat information inserted in a Certificate ofService should be deemed to be part ofthe Complaint itself. 

### It is also unclear why the FAA would insert warning language ofany kind in its Certificate ofService, whichpurportedly shouldbe utilized solely to certify proper service ofthe document it references. See 14 C.P.R.§ 13.211 (c). In any event, it is not persuasive that information omitted from the Complaint, but inserted in a Certificate ofService attachment, gives fair notice to any opposing litigant, particularly aprose litigant, regarding possible default consequences. B. Lack ofRespondent Affidavit .f ··:. The FAA argues in part:thatthe Respondent's reasons requesting a good cause finding should not be considered,**bedtu~;eithey** have not been made by affidavit. (Reply, 2.) First, while affidavits or declarations are encbuhiged, they are not always required in motionpractice. See 14 C.P.R.§ 13.218 (b) and (d). Second, it mustbe recognized that Mr. Burlum signed the December 15,2015 Response, and had his signature notarized. While the December 15, 2015 Response does not provide the oath language included in an affidavit or declaration, the notarization submission ofMr
..Burlurn, who is aproseparty litigant, supports a finding that he is specifically averring facts to the best ofhis knowledge and belief. See, 14 C.F.R. § 13.207 (b); See also, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11;**Ste~di** Baicker-McKee, et al., Federal Civil Rules Handbook, 419 (Thomas Reuters, 2016)(aparty'sprose status is a factor that is weighed in determining the reasonableness ofthe party's a6't1ohs when submitting documents.). In addition, it should be no_ted that the FAA's "affidavit" objection appears to follow some ofthe rationale inIn the Matter of Larry's FlyingService, Inc., FAA OrderNo. 199804 .·;!t. (March 12, 1998). However,**th~ fa~ts**  in that case are quite different. For example, the '.,·!· respondent in that case was**repr~sented** by counsel whenthe complaintwas served
.. (Id. at 4.) '.:1·
. The respondent had a history of.two prior safety violation cases, and had been represented by the same attorney in those prior cases. (!d.) Not insignificantly, in both ofthose prior safety violation cases, the respondent.h(ld failed to file a timely answer, though at the time the answers were due, the respondent had beenprose. (Id.) In the third safety violation case, the respondent's attorney was served with the complaint, and yet failed to file a timely answer. Afterthe attorney filed an untimely answer, he so·u.ght to avoid a default finding by inferentially raising an issue of ••confusion" regardingthe validity.ofthe complaint, the method ofservice, and when the answer Page 8 of 13was due. 

### (!d. at 3.) This "confusion" defense was rejected byboththe trial Judge andthe Administrator, in partbecausetheattorney had not filed any declaration in support ofhis "confusion" and also because the record demonstrated that the attorney (and his client) had prior experience appearing in FAA civilpenalty proceedings, and should have been familiar with the complaint service and time requirements for an answer. 

### (!d. at 4.) This type offact scenario does not exist in the case herein. C. Respondent's Earlier Response and Actions

In this case, the

### prose Respondent asserts that it mistakenly believed that it had already answered the Complaint, becauseitbadprovided its "responses" to the FAA'sNPCP on March 1

7, 20 15. Itwas undisputed thafthe

### pro se Respondent's March 1 7, 2015 response to the NPCP, which was eight (8) pages long, specifically denied most ofthe NPCP allegations, affirmatively identified eighteen defenses**(Mot~;**Ex. B, 1; Answer, Att.1, 1-7), and requested an informal conference, while reserving its right to an administrative hearing in the event that the matter could not be resolved informally. (Answer, Att.l, 7.) The FAA did not disagreethatthe Respondent had provided detailed responses to the NPCP. It asserted, however, that
..**~?~** Respondent's earlier actions had been misleading, and its requests for informal**settlemen~ ~i:~cussions**  had not been genuine. After receipt ofthe Respondent's March 17, 2015 response, the FAA scheduled an informal conference, as requested. Butthe Respondent failed to participate, and did notrequest any further informal settlement discussions. (Reply, 2.) This led to the issuance ofthe FAA's May 22, 2015 FNPCP. (Mot., Ex. B, 1-2.) Upon receipt ofthe FNPCP, the Respondentpromptly filed on June 1, 2015 a Request for Hearing ("Request"). Thereafter, on June 9, 2015, the FAA served its Complaint. (!d. at 1-2; Cornpl.) The fact that the Respondent provided detailed responses to the NPCP is not dispositive, since responses to the NPCP are not a substitute for filing a timely Answer after service ofthe Complaint, pursuant to the FAA's ROP. 14 C.F.R. § 13.209. It does show, however, that the Respondent has been trying to be responsive, and notify the FAA ofits position on the case. The fact that the Respondent did notparticipate in the FAA's informal settlement conference in 2015

Page 9 of 13is also not dispositive. 

### It does show, however, that the Respondent has not been fully responsive

- as ideally it shouldhave been

- throughout this proceeding. D. Respondent's Lack ofKnowledge and Experience

The FAA also argued in partthat the Respondent's good cause explanations offer "no facts" and only "vague contentions." (Reply, 2.) The FAA is correctthatthe Respondent has not provided specificity offact in the same mannerthat an attorney would have offered. This should not be deemed dispositive, however, sinceprose litigants often lack the skill to submit such polished submissions. 

### It also appears clearly demonstrated, by the Respondent's submissions, that it is inexperienced in legal matters and is struggling with both the procedural distinctions created by its request for a

**hearin~.**before an independenttribunal, as well as howto present information. For example, to demonstrate it has been fully responsive inthis adjudication, the Respondent attached its earlierMarch 1 7, 2015 response to its December 15, 2015 Answerwith this bolded comment: "EVENTHOUGH THE FAA ALREADY HAD THIS INFORMATION PRVIOSULY [SIC] SERVED TO THEM PRIORTO THEIRJUNE 9, 2015 COMPLAINT." (Ans. 2.) The Respondentthen separately reiterated the bulk ofits March 17, 2015 response in its Answer, but added four (4) additional affirmative defenses. (Ans. 9.) As part ofits inexperience, the Respondent appears to believe that this Court is part ofthe FAA, and that any materials it provided to the FAA, priorto the filing ofthe FAA's Complaint, are part ofthe Court's record in this proceeding. The Respondent cites to its internal communications with the FAA, priorto the filing ofthe Complaint, as a demonstration ofthe Respondent's commitmentto the proceedings. 

### It is noteworthy that manypro se litigants often offer this type oferroneous perception during initial proceedings before this Court. Therefore, it mustbe specifically stated herein, this Court is an independent tribunal. When Mr. Burl urn, onbehalfofthe Respondent, filed its Request in June 2015, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.16, he was asking for an independent adjudication ofthe FAA's allegation that the Respondent committed violations ofthe federal aviation safety regulations. Thus, upon receipt of the Respondent's Request in June 2015, the FAA promptly and properly referred Mr. Burlum's Request, along with its eight (8) page Complaint and one (I) page Certificate ofService to the Office ofHearings ("OH"). Page 10of 13While the OH is part ofthe U.S. Department ofTransportation ("DOT"), it is not a part ofthe FAA. Instead, it is part ofthe U.S. DOT's Office ofthe Secretary. As a result, the OH is independent from the FAA. This Court does not have access to the FAA'srecords. The only records before the Court are those thatthe parties have filed withthe OH (and the FAA Hearing Docket), once arespondent requests a hearing, and the FAA refers the case to the OH for a hearing. Itshould also be noted thathearings conductedby the OHare adversarial, presided over by U.S. Administrative LawJudges, and are governed by specific rules ofpractice. 14 C.F.R. Part 13, Subpart G. The proceedings are open to the public, with records filed with the Hearing Docket available to the public for review. The rules ofpractice require the FAAto file a formal complaint with the Hearing Docket and this Court after receipt ofa respondent's request for hearing. 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.208. The rules also require a respondent to file a timely written answer to the complaint with the Hearing Docket and this Court, afterthe complainthas been served. 14 C.F.R. § 13.209. The respondent's timely answernotifies not only the FAA, but also this Court and members ofthe public (viathe FAA'spublic Hearing Docket), ofthe respondent's position in the dispute. Once the respondent files an answerto the complaint, the parties typically engage in specific documentary exchange as directed by the Court, which will help the parties prepare for a hearing. E. Good Cause Demonstrated

The FAA argued that the rationale contained In the Matter of Larry's Flying Service, Inc., FAA OrderNo. 199804 (March 12, 1998), whichupheld a default finding against a respondent, is directly applicable. But as discussed earlierherein, the facts inLarry's Flying Service are substantially different, and do not providethe guidance argued by the FAA. Instead, a consideredreview ofthe record demonstrates good cause for the Respondent's failure to file atimely answer on orbefore July 15,2015. 10 Mr. Burlumhas shown, in both his

10 As noted earlier, the FAA asserted that the final day to file atimely Answer was July 14,2015. However, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.212(b), the date ofservice should not be included in the time calculation. Thus, the thirty day count, beginning the day after June 9, 2015 (the date ofservice), coupled with an additional five (5) days for Page 11 of 13materials and his oral statements on the record, that his failure to file a timely answer was not a willful disregard ofthe rules, or a lack ofattention to the proceedings, or an abandonment of responsibility. The lack ofa timely answer was the result ofa combination offactors, including (but not limited to) Mr. Burlum's overall legal inexperience, his lack ofexperience with the FAA'srules and proceedings in civil penalty proceedings, Mr. Burlum'smistaken assumptions about his responsibilities, his lack ofawareness and/orunderstanding ofthe two warning notices provided by the FAA, and the fact that Mr. Burlum was attempting tojuggle running his stressed business while engaging in a very difficult, concurrent litigation involving custody ofhis child. In addition, despite the Respondent's failure to participate in the FAA's 2015 informal settlement conference, Mr. Burlum has shown that he cares about this matter, and has tried to be active and responsible throughout the maj'6rity ofthese adjudicative proceedings. In this case, the facts support finding good cause for Mr. Burlum's untimely answer, accepting the Answer, and allowing the Respondent its day in court on the merits ofthe alleged safety violations. Conclusion Having reviewing all pleadings and documents, as well as all relevant caselaw, decisions, regulation, statutory authority, and being fully advised;


### IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The FAA presented unrebutted proofthat it served the

### prose Respondent, Extreme Energy Solutions, Inc., by certified mail onJune 9, 2015 with its Complaint. 2. The Respondent's written Answer, filed on December 15, 2015, was untimely. 3. The Respondenthas demonstrated good cause for its failure to file a timely answerto the Complaint on orbefore the deadline ofJuly 15, 2015. 4. The Respondent's untimely written Answer, filed on December 15, 2015, is accepted. 5. The FAA's September 11, 2015 Motion for Decision is denied.

service by mail (14 C.F.R. § 13.21l(e)) means that July 15,2015, would have been the last timely day to tile an Answer in this case. This one day difference is not material to the discussion and ruling in this Order.Page 12 of136. A separate order will issue shortly, resetting the Second Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference. 7. Ifeitherparty needs clarification or has any questions regarding the procedures contained in this Order, contact Mrs. Rachael Brown, Judicial StaffAssistant at the Office of Hearings (202.-366-2132).

Attachment: Service List

Page 13 of 13

### DocketNo. FAA-2015-1322 (Civil PenaltyAction) 

### 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 WilburWright Building-Suite2Wl00011 

### ONE COPY
: .' .. ' "

**~**.. 

### Mr. Glenn H. Brown Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel Federal AviationAdministration 222 West

## ih Avenue#14 Anchorage, AK99513-7587 TEL: 907-271-5271 FAX: 907-271-2800 Mr. Samuel K. Burlum, President/CEO Extreme Energy Solutions, Inc. Respondent 150 Main Street Ogdensburg,NJ 07439 FAX: 973-209-4796 Judge J.E. Sullivan U.S. AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. DepartmentofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536 **~** ·'

**.~·** '.,

11 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., WilburWright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.