U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, FAA Docket No: F AA-2011-1125 

v. Case No. 2010S0150236 

ELITE AIR, 

Respondent, 

--------------------------~/ 

REsPoNDENT's REsPoNsE IN opposiTioN To FAkls . MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Respondent, Elite Air, Inc. responds to the motion for Summary Judgment filed by the 

FAA in this case and states as follows: 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

Summary Judgment is appropriate if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to 

any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56( a). 

The Court must draw a inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant 

and resolve all reasonable doubt in that party's favor. Porter v Ray, 461 F.3d. 1315, 1320 (lith Cir. 

2006). The moving party bears the initial burden of showing the Court, by reference to materials 

on file, that there are no genuine issues of material fact that should be decided at trial. I d. Fed.R.Civ 

P. 56( a) refers to "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, 

together with the affidavits, if any," that may be used to show that there is no genuine issue as to 

any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Mere 

allegations are not suffieicent. 

ARGUMENT 

I THE FAA HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY PLEADINGS, DEPOSITIONS, ANSWERS 

TO INTERROGATORIES AND ADMISSIONS OR AFFIDAVITS TO SUPPORT ITS 

MOTION, AND ACCORDINGLY IS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
IN THE MATTER OF ELITE AIR, INC., Docket No.: FAA-2011-1125, FAA Case No. 

201080150236 

In support of its motion for summary judgment, the FAA has cited seven exhibits, none of 

which meet the standard required under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 to support it's motion. The FAA is 

relying on a statement of Inspector Meehan that is not signed under penalties of peJjury and is 

based on hearsay. The FAA also relies on copies of documents that have not (and Respondent 

believes cannot be) authenticated. 

In light of the fact that the FAA has not presented any pleadings, depositions, answers to 

interrogatories and admissions or affidavits to supports its motion, the FAA is not entitled to 

summary judgment. 

II EVEN IF THE EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY THE FAA IN SUPPORT 

OF ITS MOTION WERE APPROPRIATE, THE FAA STILL WOULD NOT 

BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Even if the exhibits submitted by the FAA in support of its motion were appropriate, they 

would not support summary judgment. The FAA has not shown that the flights were actually part 

135 flights. Further, the FAA's argument that the Respondent violated the FAR because a pilot 

failed to fill in a blank on the company's manifest fails if the blank was not applicable, and the 

FAA has not shown that the alleged blanks were applicable. Finally, the FAA has not shown that 

it is entitled to ignore FAA Order 8900.1 which clearly provides that it is inappropriate to 

propose a violation when a task has been performed and the personnel simply fails to fill in a 

blank on a form. 

It is noteworthy that Inspector Meehan's statement is patently false on its face. Inspector 

Meehan represents that he "observed" that Elite Air was not following procedures set forth in the 

company GOM. In fact, on the day Meehan conducted his inspection, the aircraft was not flying. 

Inspector Meehan's "observations" related to flights that had occurred more than 2 months prior 

to his inspection. By then, Elite Air no longer had documents that could have proven Meehan 

wrong. 

Page 2 of 4 
IN THE MATTER OF ELITE AIR, INC .• Docket No.: FAA-20!1-1125, FAA Case No. 

20 I OSO 150236 

Based on the foregoing, the FAA's motion for summary judgment should be denied. 

CoNCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Respondent respectfully requests that the court enter an order 

denying the FAA's motion for summary judgment. 

d h./) ' d f Date t IID't> ay o June, 2012. 

Respectfully submitted, 

.7 

(,r~ } ' ' ··:B. GRAY GIBB~ 

B. Gray Gibbs, I". 

100 Second Avenue South, Suite 1202 

St. Petersburg, FL 33701 

(727) 892-9901; (727) 892-9902 (fax) 

Fla. Bar No. 232955 

gibbs@gibbslawgroup.corn 

Page 3 of 4 
IN THEMATTEROF ELITE Affi. INC., Docket No.: FAA-2011-1125, FAA Case No. 

201080150236 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date provided a copy of Respondent's Response In Opposition To 

FAA's Motion for Summary Judgment to the below named addressee, via United States Priority 

Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to: 

Mr. Ryan M. Landers 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AEA-7 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Post Office Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

I hereby certify that I have this date provided a copy, via United States Priority Mail, postage 

prepaid, a copy, addressed to: 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C.20590 

I hereby certify that have this date caused to be furnished via United States Priority Mail, postage 

prepaid, the original and a copy addressed to: 

Hearing Docket Clerk 

FAA AGC-430, Suite 2Wl 000 

Wilbur Wright Building 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

/j 

Dated this:xu) day of June, 2012. 

Page4 of4