08/11/2012 12:55 FAX 2024935142 FAA -> OMS 

B6/ll/2012 07:07 d25227HI07 ANM7 

~ 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

.9 

1(,) 

11 

12. 

13 

14 

~s 

l6" 

17 

lS 

l.~ 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

215 

:n 

2S 

2~ 

30 

3'1 

:l:a 

33 

34 

35 

3Ei 

'37 

39 

'39 

40 

•U 

4:2 

<\3 

JEFF~Y' M. HARPER 

FAA 0:FPICB OF REGIONAL CotJNSlll. 

loOl.I..n-rD A"'f.aruE! SO'IJTHWESl" 

R.EN"roN, WASHINGTON 98057 

T.EL.EI'BONE: (425) 227-2161 

FACSINln..E; (425) 227-100'7 

.~q 'i'" I I '.1! '· ;: '"I'~ ' j 

UNITED STATES OJC' AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASIDNGTON, D.C. 

·In the Matter l)f: 

1o:seph Moesser 

'Jb: Judge Good"Win: 

FAA Case No. 20IONM720001 

DMS No. FAA-20J.1-l.286 

JOINT MOTION FOR RULING 

ON 

SECOND MOTION FOR DECISION 

Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

II+ accordance with 14 Code ofFedenJ Regulations (C.F.R.) Section l.3.218(a) (Rule 13.218(a)), 

tb.e Administrator (CompJ..ainant) and Respondtmt jointly bring this Motion for Ruling ~the 

Motion for Decision. Both. Complainant and R~eat believe tb.at_tb~ are no material fact!l 

in dispute relevant to the question of liability. 

On Februazy 14, 2012, Compla:ioant filed a Sc:eond Motion for _Decision. DMS No. FAA-.2011· 

1286-0010. Respondent filed a response to tbe Motion on Febr.uary 27, 2012. DMS No. F .AA.-

2011-12~6-0013. Com_plamantreplicd on March 1> 2012. DMS No. FAA~20ll-1286-0011. 

This court deoicd the Second Motion for Deeision in-its Order entered on March 7, 2012, !l'tating 

··~espondent has offered a de1alled and conceivable defense to Complainant's various 

contentions," 

. ' 

Ahbough the issue raised by the section of the Motion for Decision captioned "Merils - a. 

Respondent fail~d to show good cause,' was adjudicated ~y the Court's order ofMaroh 7, 2012, 

:; ·the :rerniim.ng arguments and defense were .not, reserving those issues for resolution after a 

hearing. Bcrcvcver, a ~ew of the pleadings and disco~ in tbe case d<:mon5trates~ and the 

parties by this motion agr~ that the material facts relevant to the question of liability :in tbJs 

case are not in dispute. The defenses and arguments asserted by b~th parties arc purely o:nes of 

law. 

~9 

·so 

52 

.!!.! 

Join! MotioXI for 'Ruling on Sec:ol:ld Motion foe Decl$i<m, 

Jom:ph M"~- FA.A-;201 1-l:l.U 

20 1 Om172000"l 

Page 1 of3 

lS!'F'IlE'f M'. EARPER, FAA. AnQII.NFf 

"IU: {425) 227-2161; PAX: (425) 227-1007 

@ 002/004 

PAGE 02/134 
OS/11/2012 12:55 FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMS 

05/11/2012 07:07 425227l0El7 ANM7 

1 

2 

3 

~ 

s 

6 

i 

g 

9 

1.0 

ll. 

12 

13 

:1.-!1 

1.5 

16 

17 

18 

19 

:zo ' 

n 

22 

23. 

7.4 

:JS 

2l: 

27 

!:til 

2!lo 

)O 

~1 

):Z 

3:3 

34 

35 

36 

)' 

;;!6 

3S 

40 

1:1. 

42 

'l3 

44 

4.S 

~s 

47 

48 

1!1 

so 

51 

52 

SJ 

The parties also believe the questions of law raised have been adequately briefed by the Second 

Motion for Decis.ion. Respondent"s Responsej and Complainant's Reply, and believe the 

que...tton ofliabi1ity {s ripe for decision on a Motion for Decision. 

The parties both believe that tbc: qucs1icc of sanctio~ will be amenable to scttl~ent once the 

question ofliabilityhas been decided. 

Complaimw.t and respondent agree that there are c.o facts· in dispute :relevlUlt .to tbe question of 

liability; counsel for both parties respeetfu.ily request this court reconsider itS order of March 7, 

2012, enter an order adjudicaring the question of liability, and limit any bearing in tbis c.a..~ to 

the question. of an appropriate sanction. 

DATED this ·:.1£. day of Juot; 2012. 2.;: __ 

ecca Skordas 

Counsel for Respo!ldmt 

JC>iut Motion for P..llling on Second Motion for Deci.9jon. 

Josepb Moesser-fAA·20ll·J2g6 

Z010NM720001 

Pag~2 of~ 

JEFn..l,Y M. HAIU'l!ll, f:AA II.'T1'tlJUG:Y 

TEL.: (.US) 227-2161; FAX: (42S) Z27-1007 

raJ 003/004 

PAGE 03/04 
OS/11/2012 12:55 FAX 2024935142 

B6/ll/2Bl2 87!87 . 4252271BB7 

1 

"Z 

3 

4 

5 

FAA 

ANM7 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

,. OMS 141004/004 

PAGE 04/04 

G I hereby certify that the foregoing Joint Motion for Ruling on Second Motion for Decision has 

1 been served via facsimile and Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested this date, to the 

Iii follo-wing: 

10 

11 

12 

13 

J.4 

lS 

16 

J.7 

16 

19 

:20 

21 

.n 

23 

24 

:25 

26 

27 

::l.EI 

2!1 

~0 

·n 

32 

·33 

J4 

~5 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

i:i! 

43 

u. 

45 

46 

4? 

43 

49 

so 

51 

::;;2 

53 

Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

1200 New .Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 · 

FAX: (202) 366-7536 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wt 000 

Federal Aviation Administration · 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

FAX: (202) 493~5020 

Gregory G Skordas 

Skordas, Caston & Hyde, LLC 

341 South M~n Street, Suite 303 

Salt Lake City, UT 84 t 11. 

FAX: (801) 531-88&5 

Dated tbis 11 tn day of June, 20 12. 

~u~fi}iri@U6 Dana SteEhenson 

Office of Regional Coun.sel (ANM-7) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 LindAve_ SW 

Renton, WA 98057 

(425) 227-2164 

Joint Motion for Rlllinz on Second Motion for Decision. 

J C'>~eph Mce5.3r:r- F AA-201 1-J 2S6 

JEFFREYM. HARPER, FAAATT~ 

TEL: (425) 227·2161; FAX: (425) 227·1007 201 0l\llv.f72000] 

Pagc3 of3