U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Complainant 

RECEIVED 

AUG 2 6 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

Vs. 

Docket No. FAA-2013-1086 

FAA Case No. 2011 S0190181 

PUERTO RICO POLICE DEPT. 

Respondent 

Judge J. E. Sullivan 

SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DEEM ADMITTED 

Hereby appears Respondent, Puerto Rico Police Department, represented by the 

subscribing counsel, and states, alleges and requests as follows: 

I. RELEVANT FACTS 

Dated March 3, 2014 the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter referred as 

"FAA") sent Respondent by certified mail a letter regarding it's "Final Notice of 

Proposed Civil Penalty". Through said letter the FAA warned Respondent that, 

unless it mailed or personally delivered in writing, a request for a hearing in this 

matter, on or before fifteen (15) days after receipt of the Final Notice, an order 

Assessing Civil Penalty will be issued and Respondent will not have further right to 

a hearing. 

On March 15, 2014, and within the established term, Respondent sent by certified 

mail a letter requesting hearing. The FAA filed on March 19, 2014 the Complaint 

and on March 26, 2014 the case was assigned to Judge J.E. Sullivan. An Order was 
Page 2 of 6 

sent on May 16, 2014 Setting Rule 16 and scheduling the Litigation Conference for 

July 15, 2014. Later on, this Litigation Conference was re-scheduled for July 23, 

2014. 

The parties held a conference call on July 16, 2014 to discuss the Joint Scheduling 

Discovery Plan. On this date the parties also discussed other pending matters, 

specifically the request by the FAA of certain documents related with the results 

to date of Respondent's internal adjudicative procedures against the concerning 

parties. At no time during this call did the FAA raise the issue that the Complaint 

had not been answered. The documents requested were sent to the FAA on July, 

22, 2014, with the intention of trying to reach a settlement agreement, as 

previously discussed by the parties. Nevertheless, on this same date, the FAA 

filed a Motion to Deem Admitted and immediately Respondent filed it's "Answer to 

Complaint and/or Motion to Dismiss and Opposition to Motion to Deem Admitted". 

On July 23, 2014 the scheduled conference took place, and after reviewing the 

motions submitted by the parties, Judge J. E. Sullivan granted Respondent an 

additional time to supplement it's Opposition to Motion Deem Admitted. In 

compliance with said order, Respondent hereby submits it's supplemental 

opposition. 

II. APPLICABLE LAW 

The Federal Aviation Administration has the discretion to grant a respondent leave 

to file a response to a complaint out of time for good cause. 14 C.P.R. §13.209(£); 

see also In the Matter of Cornwall, FAA Order No. 92-47 (July 22, 1992). Cases 

interpreting Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and cited in FAA Chief Counsel"s 
Page 3 of 6 

opinions provide guidance on when it is appropriate to permit an out of time filing. 

In determining whether there is good case, the administrative law judge may 

consider three factors: (1) why the defaulting party failed to submit an answer; (2) 

whether the party has a meritorious defense, and (3) whether granting leave to 

file a late response will prejudice the other party. In the present case, Respondent 

satisfies all three of these factors. 

As stated above, Respondent filed within time it's request for hearing. During this 

period Respondent has been in communication with Complainant regarding the 

issues of the present case in a good faith attempt to delimitate the controversies 

and reach a possible settlement. Respondent has been conducting an internal 

adjudicative procedure regarding the present Complaint and has even sent the FAA 

the documents and letters regarding the results to date of said investigation. 

Respondent was under the impression that Complainant tacitly consented that 

Respondent could complete said internal investigation in order to responsibly 

answer the complaint at hand if a settlement could not be reached. 

As demonstrated in the Answer to the Complaint submitted on July 22, 2014, 

Respondent has meritorious defenses to the Complaint. We hereby incorporate by 

reference the Answers to the Complaint and Affirmative Defenses there stated. 

The FAA has recognized that ""cases should be disposed of on the merits after a 

hearing, rather than summarily because of a procedural defect." In the Matter of 

Cornwall, FAA Order No. 92-47 at 7. These defenses, as well as the FAA"s claims, 

should be adjudicated rather than summarily dismissed due to an inadvertent 

procedural defect like Respondent"s failure to timely file an answer. 
Page 4 of 6 

Finally, accepting Respondent's Answer to Complaint out of time does not 

prejudice the FAA in this matter. In determining whether prejudice exists, courts 

have identified the following risks to consider: loss of evidence, increased 

difficulties of discovery, or an enhanced opportunity for fraud or collusion. FDIC v. 

Francisco Investment Corp., 873 F.2d 474,4 79. As stated above, here none of 

those risks exists as this matter is in its infancy. As a result, Complainant's ability 

to conduct discovery and obtain evidence is completely intact and the delay will 

have no impact on Complainant's ability to prosecute its case. On the contrary, 

during this time Respondent has sent Complainant documents requested by the 

latter. 

In the Matter of Safety Equipment and Sign Co. LTD, FAA Order No. 92-76 

(December 21, 1992) the FAA decision maker found good cause for the late filing 

of an answer where the respondent's counsel's paralegal failed to properly receive 

and calendar the Complaint. The decision maker also recognized that "wherever 

possible, the cases should be disposed of on the merits after a hearing, rather than 

summarily because of a procedural defect." As stated in said case by the FAA 

decision maker, "[a]s a general rule, counsel are expected to know and meet 

procedural deadlines... [n]evertheless a close examination of all the circumstances 

of this case, viewed with a forgiving eye, leads to the conclusion that good cause 

is present. 

Ill. CONCLUSION 

Before and after the filing of the Complaint the herein appearing party has been in 

communication with Complainant regarding the issues of the present case in a 
Page 5 of6 

good faith attempt to delimitate the controversies and try to reach a settlement. 

On July 22, 2014 Respondent received a motion filed by Complainant titled 

"Motion to Deem Admitted" and took immediate action upon receiving the same 

and in said date filed it's Answer to Complaint. As stated on the Answer to 

Complaint and for the reasons hereby indicated, the same was not filed with the 

intention of delaying the administrative proceedings before the Federal Aviation 

Administration, but because responsibly was not possible to file an answer to 

complaint until Respondent finished it's internal adjudicative procedures against 

the concerning parties. 

In lieu of the above, and in the interest of fairness, Respondent hereby 

respectfully request the "Motion to Deem Admitted" be denied and Respondent's 

Answer to Complaint be accepted. 

Respectfully submitted this 22 day of August 2014. 

, £)z//~?~ I ) "Na~i'~~'~ !~~u~~~hman ~:l~ Attorney 

Office of Legal Affairs 

PO Box 71200 

San Juan, PR 00936 

Phone 787-793-1234 ext. 3067, 2203 

Fax. 787-781-7993 

n mabdulrahn:J_<'jn@policia. pr" gov 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO MOTION 

TO DEEM ADMITTED has been sent by the following methods: 
Page 6 of 6 

Original and one copy via certified mail on August 22, 2014: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Wilbur Wright Building 

Suite 2W1 000 

Washington, DC 20591 

One copy via certified mail on August 22, 2014: 

Christopher R. Stevenson 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Southern Region 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

Fax: (404)-305-5223 

Honorable Judge J.E. Sullivan 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (e11-310) 

Washington, de 20590 

Fax: (202) 366-7536