UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRii 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Venice Jet Center, LLC 

Complainant, 

V. 

City of Venice, Florida 

Respondent. 

FAA Docket No. 16-09-05 

/ 

TRISTATE AVIATION GROUP OF FLORIDA'S 

OPPOSITION TO CITY OF VENICE. FLOMDA'S MOTION TO DISMISS 

• 1 

CD 

:Kj a 

Instate Aviation Group of Florida LLC ("Tristate"), by and through its undersigftedS 

—tD 

'—^ 

counsel, as the assignee of the lease by and between Venice Jet Center, LLC ("VJC")- and tl ^ 

City of Venice ("the City" or "Respondent"), pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 16.19(c), submits this 

opposition to the City of Venice, Florida's Motion to Dismiss ("Motion to Dismiss") and states 

that the Motion to Dismiss should be denied as (1) the underlying lease was never terminated, (2) 

the dispute is ripe, (3) the City consented to the assignment of the lease, (4) a Federal Court 

confirmed and ordered the assignment of the lease and rights therein, and (5) the Motion to 

Dismiss is untimely. 

1. The City filed the Motion to Dismiss in response to Tristate Aviation Group of 

Florida LLC's Motion to Intervene and for Joinder as Co-Complainant ("Motion to Intervene"). 

2. The arguments raised in the Motion ignore the fact that the City has consented to 

the assignment and that a Federal Court ordered the assignument. Clearly, the lease between the 

City of Venice and VJC was never terminated. Rather, Tristate has now become the lessee under 

the lease. The requests to build hangars are still pending and have not been approved. The 
authorities cited by the City in the Motion to Dismiss are based on a lease termination, and thus 

are not applicable. 

3. Tristate is now the lessee which is being prevented fi-om building hangars on its 

leasehold. Please see the Sworn Declaration of Donald Martin Kretchman attached as Exhibit 

"A". Please also see the City's consents to the assignment which are attached to the Motion to 

Intervene as Exhibit "B" and the Federal Court order approving the assignments attached to the 

Motion to Intervene as Exhibit "C". 

4. The City cannot ignore the simple fact that it has consented to the assignment and 

that a Federal Judge ordered the assignment. Nothing has changed, except the name of the 

lessee. The dispute still exists and the City continues to violate its grant assurances with the 

Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"). 

5. The City has also failed to mention that it has had informal meetings with Tristate 

to discuss the hangar dispute. Please see the Sworn Declaration of Donald Martin Kretchman 

attached as Exhibit "A". Therefore, Tristate has complied with C.F.R. 14 16.21, in that has had 

its own informal meetings with the City (up and above the meetings held by the lessee when VJC 

was the lessee under the lease). 

6. Further the City's paltry excerpts quoting Mr. Kretchman are taken out of context. 

Tristate has never stated that it did not intend to build the hangars as proposed. Please see the 

Sworn Declaration of Donald Martin Kretchman attached as Exhibit "A". See also, publication 

corroborating Tristate's position with respect to the hangars attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 

7. The City's claim that it objected to the assignment of the part 16 action is 

irrelevant as the Federal Court clearly denied the objection. The Court order, which the Federal 

Court entered on January 20, 2010, confirmed assignment of all rights, including this part 16 
action. Clearly the Federal Court agreed that the part 16 action claims are assignable and are 

assigned to Tristate. This assignment makes sense as the same dispute still remains, i.e. that the 

City is preventing the lessee firom building hangars in violation of FAA grant assurances. 

Certainly the City could have appealed the Federal Court order, and as it stands, the Federal 

Court order is in place and has ruled that all rights have been assigned to Tristate. 

8. The City's decision to file the Motion to Dismiss on February 18, 2010 (nearly a 

month after the Federal Court approved the sale and a mere 7 days prior to the date that the FAA 

is required to rule on the underlying part 16 complaint) is questionable. This City has clearly put 

the FAA and Tristate in a position where the FAA is forced to rule and Tristate is forced to 

respond prior to the 10 days provided in 14 CFR 16.21(c). Thus, the Motion to Dismiss should 

be denied as untimely. 

9. Ultimately, it is within the purview of FAA to determine whether Tristate has 

standing. The facts remain that (1) the City has consented to the assigmnent, (2) the Federal 

Court ordered the assignment, and (3) the lessee under the lease remains being prevented fi-om 

building hangars on its leasehold in violation of FAA grant assurances. Thus, the dispute is ripe, 

Tristate has standing, and Tristate should be allowed to participate in this part 16 action. Further, 

the City has no legal grounds to argue, as it does, that the relief requested in the Motion to 

Intervene should be denied as it is not provided for in the part 16 rules. See 14 CFR section 

16.19(a) and Jetaway Aviation v. Montrose County, FAA Docket No 16-08-01, 2009 WL 

2136622 at *16(Director's Determination, July 2, 2009)(Motions are the appropriate means by 

which parties should apply for an order or ruling not specifically provided for in the Part 16 

procedures). 

10. Accordingly, Tristate requests that the Motion to Dismiss be denied. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on the 

following persons by overnight delivery on February 22,2010: 

Office of the Chief Counsel Jonathan Cross 

Attn: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Manager 

Docket, AGC-610 Airports and Enviroimiental Law division 

Room 925 Federal Aviation Administration 

Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

800 hidependence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20591 

Washington, DC 20591 Facsimile (202) 267-5769 

Original and 3 copies 1 Copy 

I hereby further certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on the 

following persons by electronic mail on February 22, 2010: 

Raymond Veatch 

Airport and Environmental Law Division 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Room 900-E 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

(202) 267-3199 (office) 

(202) 267-9676 (direct) 

(202) 267-5769 (fax) 

Ravmond. Veatch@faa. gov 

I hereby fiarther certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on the 

following persons by overnight mail and electronic mail on February 22, 2010: 

Thomas R. Devine 

Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP 

1001 Connecticut Ave. NW, Ste. 800 

Washington, DC 20036 

Telephone: (202) 955-5600 

Email: tdevine@kaplankirsch.com 

and 
Dominique H. Pearlman 

Wiand Guerra King 

3000 Bayport Drive, Suite 600 

Tampa, Fl 33607 

Telehone: (813) 347-5109 

Email: dpearlman@wiandlaw.com 

I hereby further certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on the 

following persons by United States mail on February 22, 2010: 

Robert C. Anderson 

Hall & Anderson, P.A 

1314 East Venice Avenue, Suite E 

Venice, Florida 34285 

s/ 

RICHARD L. RICHARDS 

Florida Bar No. 9415 

Email: rrichards@richpa.net 

RICHARDS & ASSOCL\TES 

232,Andalusia Avenue, Suite 202 

Coral Gables, Florida 33134 

Telephone: (305) 448-2228 

Facsimile: (305) 448-2229 

Attorneys for Tristate Aviation Group of 

Florida LLC 
Exhibit "A" 

(Sworn Declaration of Donald Martin Kretchman of Tristate)