In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: August 10, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

WILLIAM A. CURTRIGHT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Respondent ) 

Case No. 2014NM090046 

ORDER SETTING A SECOND LITIGATION 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND A DEADLINE 

TO EXCHANGE INITIAL DISCLOSURES, 

AND GRANTING/DENYING OTHER RELIEF 

On May 23, 2016, 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. 

On July 22,2016, the FAA unilaterally filed the Complainant's Response to the ALl's 

Order of May 23, 2016-Discovery Scheduling ("FAA's Proposed Schedule"). 

On August 9, 2016 ( 11 :03 a.m.), the pro s·e Respondent, Mr. William A. Curtright, filed a 

document titled the "Respondent's Response to the AU's Order of May 23,2016 and 

Complainant's Response" ("August 9, 2016 Respondent Filing"). Among other things, this 

August 9, 2016 Respondent Filing contained an untitled motion to dismiss the action with 

prejudice on multiple grounds. 

On August 9, 2016, the parties appeared by telephone for the Rule 16 Litigation 

Scheduling Conference. During this Conference the parties discussed a variety of litigation 

procedural matters, including the content of prior Court rulings, the FAA's Proposed Schedule, 

the August 9, 2016 Respondent Filing, and the status of discovery exchange. 
A. Brief Discussion 

This brief discussion highlights only a few of the matters discussed and ruled upon by the 

Court during the August 9, 2016 Conference. 

1. The Parties' Motions and the Court's Orders 

Although proper motion practice had been briefly addressed in prior Court rulings, 1 the 

parties' most recent filings indicated continued confusion. Both parties appeared to believe that it 

was proper to file "responses" to court orders. In addition, the Respondent again imbedded a 

new, untitled motion inside a "response" document. During the August 9, 2016 Conference, the 

Court reviewed both its May 20, 2016 and May 18, 2016 Orders, in which it had specifically 

identified the need for proper motion titles and fair notice of motion requests. This Order codi ties 

that review and discussion, with additional explanation and authority. 

In essence, a "plaintiff' (or in FAA civil penalty proceedings a "complainant"), is the 

party who initiates the action, or who files the complaint. Plaint(ff, Black's Law Dictionary, I 035 

(5th ed. 1979). The "respondent" is the party who answers or responds to the plaintiff's action. 

Respondent, id. at 1179. Once an action is initiated and while it is pending, either party may tile 

motions (i.e., requests for relief) with the court, seeking rulings on disputed issues within the 

action. 56 Am Jur 2d Motions, Rules, and Orders§ I (2013); 27 Fed. Proc., L. Ed. Pleadings and 

Motions§ 62.358 (2013). When a party tiles a motion, it is the "movant." The party answering 

the motion is the "responding" party. Thus, a "responding" party may then file a "response" (or 

"opposition") to the motion? 56 Am Jur 2d Motions, Rules, and Orders§§ 7-39 (2013). If 

allowed, the movant may thereafter file a "reply" to the opposing party's "response."3 27 Fed. 

Proc., L. Ed. Pleadings and Motions§ 62.360 (20 13). 

1 See May 18, 2016 Order Finding Good Cause for the Respondent's Untimely Answer, Denying the FAA's 

Renewed Motion, and Granting/Denying Other Relief, 2-3 fns. 2, 3, 4, and 5; and May 20. 2016 Order Denying the 

Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, and Granting/Denying Other Relief. I fn. I. 

2 In different courts, the titles of the response may vary (e.g., answer, opposition, reply), but the concept is the same. 

It is a response to the opposing side's request for relief. 

1 In certain courts, the rules for document titling differ. Thus, this final document filed by the movant (after leave is 

granted by the Court) might also be titled a "surreply." 27 Fed. Proc., L. Ed. Pleadings and Motions§ 62.7 (2013) 

Page 2 of 5 
In stark contrast to the plaintiff and the respondent, the Court is not a party to the action. 

It is therefore not involved in the parties' motion dialogue, where the parties are explaining their 

positions on a disputed matter via a motion, response, or reply. After the parties' motion dialogue 

is completed, the Court reviews the parties' motion, response, and reply (if any), and "speaks 

through the language of its orders." 56 Am Jur 2d Motions, Rules, and Orders§ 42 (2013). A 

Court's order is a "mandatory directive for parties to comply with its dictates." !d. In its orders, 

the Court may "grant or deny specified relief' regarding the disputed matter in a motion, and/or 

"direct a party to take or to refrain from taking action." !d. Thus, if the Court directs a party to 

take action, the party must do so, in the manner specified by the Court. /d. 

2. Fair Notice Requirements in Motions Practice 4 

When a party files a motion, it must comply with certain "fair notice" requirements, both 

in title and content. Steven Baicker-McKee, et al., Federal Civil Rules Handbook, 409 (Thomson 

Reuters 2016); see also, Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b), 10. This includes identifying the motion(s) in the 

title of the document, and then setting forth "each distinct allegation" supporting each motion 

request in a separately numbered paragraph. Baicker-McKee, et al., supra, at 405-409. The 

FAA's Rules of Practice follow this bright line motion practice, by requiring that any general 

motion filed by a party must be in writing, state the relief sought, and identify the particular 

grounds supporting that requested relief. 14 C.F.R. § 13 .218(b )-(c). 

The purpose of these requirements is to give clear and fair notice of the movant's 

request(s) to both the Court and the opposing party. 

That requirement ensures that notice of the basis for the motion is provided to the 

court and to the opposing party so as to avoid prejudice, provide the opponent 

with a meaningful opportunity to respond, and provide the court with enough 

information to process the motion correctly. 

27 Fed. Proc., L. Ed. Pleadings and Motions§ 62.364 (2013). 

When a party fails to provide fair and clear notice of its requests in its filed documents, 

and instead hides a motion within a document (e.g., imbedding an untitled request in a document, 

4 This information was provided in the CoUit's May 20,2016 Order Denying the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. 

and Granting/Denying Other Relief (May 20, 2016 Order, 2. A), but is repeated here with additional explanation and 

authority. 

Page 3 of 5 
"grouping" multiple requests under a single motion title, etc.), such failure to provide fair and 

clear notice of the motion is a serious flaw, and may result in the flawed motion being struck or 

dismissed. (Baicker-McKee, et al., supra, at 411.) 

3. Respondent's Renewed August 9, 2016 Motion to Dismiss 

As noted above, on August 9, 2016 (11 :03 a.m.), the prose Respondent, Mr. William A. 

Curtright, filed a document titled the "Respondent's Response to the ALJ's Order of May 23, 

2016 and Complainant's Response" ("August 9, 2016 Respondent Filing"). Among other things, 

this August 9, 2016 Respondent Filing contained an untitled motion to dismiss. 

During the August 9, 2016 ( 1:30 p.m.) Conference, the Court referred the Respondent to 

its May 20, 2016 Order, in which it had specifically discussed the need for fair notice of motion 

requests. The Court also discussed with the Respondent how the May 20, 2016 Order had 

contained a thorough review and ruling on the Respondent's January 19, 2016 Motion to 

Dismiss. 

As noted by this Court on August 9, 2016, the Respondent appeared unfamiliar with the 

Court's May 20,2016 ruling. It also appeared that the Respondent's untitled August 9, 2016 

Motion to Dismiss was a reiteration of the same facts and argument submitted by the Respondent 

in its January 19,2016 Motion, which had already been considered and ruled upon. Thus. even if 

the untitled and flawed August 9, 2016 Motion to Dismiss was accepted for consideration by the 

Court, it appeared to simply repeat facts and arguments that the Court had already specifically 

reviewed and denied. 

B. Conclusion 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.205, 13.220, and Civ. R. 16, and after reviewing all relevant 

caselaw, regulations, statutory authority, and being fully advised; 

Page 4 of 5 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. September 9, 2016: Deadline for Initial Disclosures. To ensure that the parties have 

sufficient time to address all issues in dispute, the parties shall serve each other with 

initial disclosures (as described in Civ. R. 26(a)(1 )(A)(i), (ii), and (iii)), on or before 

September 9, 2016, without waiting for a specific discovery request. 

2. September 20, 2016 (1:30 p.m. ET): Second Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling 

Conference. The parties shall appear by telephone on Tuesday, September 20,2016, at 

I :30 p.m. Eastern time for a Second Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference. To access 

the Conference line, the parties shall dial 888-278-0296 and enter code 5851842. 

3. The parties shall comply with fair and clear notice motion practice, as discussed in this 

and prior Orders, in all future document filings. 

4. On or before September 9, 2016, the FAA shall provide a specific commencement date 

for the alleged violation in this action. 

5. The Respondent's August 9, 2016 untitled Motion to Dismiss is a reiteration of its 

January 19, 2016 Motion to Dismiss. The discussion regarding the January 19, 2016 

Motion to Dismiss is therefore referenced and adopted herein, and the August 9, 2016 

untitled Motion to Dismiss is denied. 

6. For clarifications of this order or questions with regard to the procedures to be followed 

in this case, please contact Mr. Cody L. Smith, Attorney-Advisor at the Office of 

Hearings (202-366-6941 ). 

Attachment: Service List 

Page 5 of 5 
• 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

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 0005 

Mr. David F. Shayne 

Complainant's Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue S.W. 

Renton, WA 98057 

TEL: 425-227-184 7 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

Dr. William Ames Curtright, DBA 

Re.\pondent 

P.O. Box 1350 

Jefferson, OR 97352 

TEL: 503-209-7388 

FAX: 503-485-0812 

Judge J .E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey A venue, S.E. (E 11-31 0) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

ONE COPY 

5 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 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.