RECEIVED 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

JUN 1 1 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

*********************************************** 

In the Matter of Ridan Investments, 

Inc. 

Respondent. 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

*********************************************** 

FAA Docket No.: TO BE ASSIGNED 

FDMS No.: FAA-2013-1082 

FAA Case No.: 2012S0700133 

FAA Region: Western-Pacific 

Judge: Hon. Richard C. Goodwin 

COMPLAINANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL, 

OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO 

EXTEND TIME TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY 

To: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Richard C. Goodwin, and Respondent: 

Pursuant to 14 C.F .R. section 13.218 of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty 

Actions', Complainant, Federal Aviation Administration (Agency), moves for an Order 

compelling Respondent to respond to the Agency's First Set of Discovery, or in the 

alternative, to extend the time period to conduct discovery, or other relief as the court deems 

appropriate. 

FACTS 

On February 14, 2014, Complainant served its Complaint in this matter? On March 

4, 2014, the ALJ served his Procedural Order on the parties.3 On March 24, 2014, 

Respondent served its Answer.4 Respondent's Answer generally responded to each factual 

allegation that it "lacks sufficient information and belief to admit or deny the allegations and 

denies on that basis."5 Subsequently, this case was transferred from Complainant's Southern 

1 14 C.F.R. §13.218. 2 See Exhibit A (Complaint). 3 See Exhibit B (Procedural Order). 4 See Exhibit C (Answer). 

5 ld. 
Region to Complainant's Western-Pacific Region because the Procedural Order set the 

location for a hearing in Long Beach, Califomia.6 During approximately the week of March 

17, 2014, this matter was assigned to the undersigned. The undersigned prepared discovery 

on or about April4, 2014 and took pre-approved leave during the week of April 7, 2014. On 

April 7, 2014, Complainant served a Notice of Appearance by U.S. mail.7 On the same day, 

Complainant also served the prepared discovery requests on Respondent by U.S. mail.8 

On May 19, 2014, Complainant received Respondent's response to the discovery 

requests.9 Respondent did not answer any of the discovery requests because it claimed 

discovery had to be concluded by May 9, 2014 pursuant to the ALJ' s Procedural Order.10 On 

May 23, 2014, Complainant's substituted counsel contacted Respondent's counsel in order to 

meet and confer prior to filing this instant motion. 11 Although the meet and confer discussion 

was productive, it did not result in an agreement or stipulation for Respondent to answer 

Complainant's discovery requests. 

ARGUMENT 

As Respondent references in its Response, pursuant to section 13.211 (d) of the Rules 

of Practice, the date of service is the mailing date shown on the certificate of service, and 

after service by mail, an additional five ( 5) days is added to the prescribed period for a 

response. 12 Accordingly, Complainant avers that Respondent's responses to Complainant's 

Discovery Requests were due on or before May 12, 2014. However, Complainant would be 

6 See Exhibit B (Procedural Order). 7 See Exhibit D (Amended Notice of Appearance). Original Notice served on April 7, 2014 with incorrect 

FDMSNo. 

'See Exhibit E (Complainant's First Set of Discovery to Respondent). 9 See Exhibit F (Respondent's Response to Discovery). 

10 Id. 

n See Exhibit G (Declaration of Complainant's Counsel). 12 14 C.F.R. §13.2ll(d). 

2 
prejudiced in its preparation for hearing without responses to discovery. Good cause exists 

for Respondent to respond to Complainant's discovery requests. 

First, May 9, 2014, was a Friday. May 12, 2014, was a Monday. Thus, 

Complainant's discovery was one (1) business day late. Consequently, any such time delay 

was de minimis and did not prejudice Respondent. Second, good cause exists to extend 

discovery and excuse this one (1) business day delay because no hearing date has been 

scheduled. Thus, answering Complainant's discovery would not prejudice Respondent in its 

preparation for a hearing or litigation during pendency of a hearing date. 

Without responses to the propounded discovery, Complainant will be hampered in its 

ability to prepare for a hearing in this matter. Specifically, Complainant's discovery requests 

generally seek information and documents regarding Respondent's basis for denying each 

paragraph in the Complaint; identification and information regarding documents Respondent 

intends to present at hearing; identification and information regarding witnesses to be 

presented at hearing; identification and information regarding experts to be presented at 

hearing, if any, and the substance of their anticipated testimony; and additional facts 

underlying affirmative defenses that Respondent raised in its Answer, including its 

affirmative defense of a financial inability to pay the proposed civil penalty of $55,000.0013 

Furthermore, Complainant believes that its Requests for Admissions would promote 

judicial economy here, as they seek admission of several facts that Complainant believes are 

not reasonably subject to dispute here. 14 IdentifYing and stipulating to these issues would 

promote a faster, more-streamlined hearing. 

13 See Exhibit E (Complainant's First Set of Discovery to Respondent). 14 Id. 

3 
Therefore, Complainant requests that the ALJ issue an Order compelling Respondent 

to provide separate and complete answers to each of the pending discovery requests sent on 

April 7, 2014, or, in the alternative, an Order extending the discovery completion date. 

Complainant would also agree to extending time for Respondent to serve discovery such that 

it would not be prejudiced by any extension. To date, no discovery has been served on 

Complainant by Respondent. 

Respectfully submitted, 

NAOMI TSUDA 

Regional Counsel 

By:~ c{))TAdOlPh 

General Attorney 

Dated: May 23, 2014 

CBAx7128/05-23-14/L:ADOLPH/CivAvEnf/CivPenalties/Hazmat!Ridan 

Investrnentslnc/Motion to Compel.doc 

4 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that on this date I have placed in the United States mail, postage 

prepaid, the executed original, and one copy of the COMPLAINANT'S MOTION TO 

COMPEL, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO 

CONDUCT DISCOVERY, addressed as follows: 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 

I further certifY that on this date I have placed in the United States mail, postage 

prepaid, a copy of the above, addressed as follows: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Attn.: Patricia Matthews, Staff Assistant 

And by United States mail, postage prepaid, a copy of the above, addressed as follows: 

Lawrence M. Burek (Counsel for Respondent) 

550 North Parkcenter Drive, Suite 204 

Santa Ana, CA 92705 

Dated: MI\Y 23 2014 

~~,~~ 01<=-~-; Jefferey K be;g, a! Technici;n {/ 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Western-Pacific Region 

Lawndale, California 

5 
Exhibit 

"A" 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

FEB 1 4 2014 

Southern Region 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

CERTIFIED- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Hearing Docket Clerk 

FAA, AGC-430, Suite 2WIOOO 

Wilbur Wright Building 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

P .0. Box 20636 

Atlanta, Georgia 30320 

(404) 305-5200 

( 404) 305-5223 FAX 

Re: In the Matter ofRidan Investments, Inc. FAA Case No. 2012S0700133 

Enclosed herewith please tlnd a copy of a request for hearing and the original and one copy of 

the Complaint in the above-referenced proceeding. 

The FAA requests that the hearing in this matter be held in the Atlanta, Georgia area, and 

expects that the hearing will last two days. 

Please address all communications for the FAA to the undersigned, at: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Oftlce of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, Georgia 30320 

Telephone: (404) 305-5200, facsimile (404) 305-5223. 

~~rv CHRISTOPHER R. STEVENSON 

Attorney 

Enclosures 
Postage $ f----------1 Certified Fee 

Return Receipt Fee 

(Endorsement Required) I I Restricted Delivery Fee 

(Endorsement Required) 

f------j 

Total Postage & Fees ! $ 

Postmark 

Hli!fe 

•· SentTo l.L; ~~;~::;~OJln.Cj-_J)::JC.J:\e±:_ ___ CktK: _____________ _ CW,State;ZiP+4··-·o·------------------------------------------·---------------------

·:rt,,Mf.,\il·iit."liil"-'tnu~ 

ca 11•l·J,@j@!Mf111•WMt"!JI,f111f/,HJfi·l@d·l§#t.l'Jf.@l IJ1 

..11 ['-

<0 <0 

U1 IJ1 

['- ['-

;;r 

['- Postage 

;;r 

$ ['- Postage I $ 

ru ru Certified Fee Certified Fee 

r'l ~ostmark r'l Postmark Cl Return Receipt Fee Here Cl Return Receipt Fee Here Cl {Endorsement Required) Cl (Endorsement Required) 

Cl Restricted Delivery Fee Cl Restricted Delivery Fee {Endorsement Required) Cl (Endorsement Required) 

Total Postage & Fees ! $ rn 

..11 Total Postage & Fees [ $ 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION. 

Complainant, 

vs. 

Ridan Investments, Inc. 

Respondent. 

JUDGE NOT YET ASSIGNED 

FAA Docket No. 

Judge 

COMPLAINT 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, hereby files its Complaint, 

pursuant to Rule 208 of the Rules of Practice (14 C.F.R. 13.208), and states as follows: 

I. 

· 1. On January 14,2014, Respondent, Ridan Investments, Inc. was advised through a 

Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the 

amount of$55,000. On February 3, 2014, the Agency Attorney received a written request for a 

hearing fi-om the Respondent. 

II. 

2. On or about February 19, 20I2, Ridan Investments, Inc. (Ridan) knowingly 

offered to Federal Express a one-piece shipment consisting of a fiberboard box containing 

hazardous materials for transportation by air. 

2. The above-mentioned shipment was assigned Federal Express air waybill number 

798070503924. The shipment was offered by Ridan for transportation to the consignee, Chris 

Bithell, 29307 Rohdin Place, Wesley Chapel, FL 33545. 

3. At all times mentioned herein, the above-mentioned shipment was not 

accompanied by a Shipper's Certification or Declaration of Dangerous Goods. 
4. On or about February 19, 2012, the above-mentioned shipment was flown on a 

regularly scheduled Federal Express cargo flight in air transportation to the Federal Express sort 

facility in Orlando, Florida. 

5. On or about February 19, 2012, ground-handling personnel at the Federal Express 

sort facility discovered the above-mentioned shipment leaking. 

6. The above-mentioned fiberboard box contained two aerosol cans of MOTUL 

Chain Lube - Off Road and two aerosol cans of K&N Air Filter Oil #99-0156, totaling 

approximately 40 fl. oz. 

7. (a) MOTUL Chain Lube- Off Road and K&N Air Filter Oil are classified as 

ha~ardous materials under the Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(HMR) (49 C.F.R. § 172.101). 

(b) The proper shipping name of the material is Aerosol, flammable, n.o.s. It 

is in Hazard Class 2.1 (Flammable Gas), and has an assigned identification number of UN 1950. 

The proper label is FLAMMABLE GAS. 

8. Ridan offered the above-described shipment of hazardous material for 

transportation by air without shipping papers that included: 

(a) the assigned identification number prescribed for each hazardous material; 

(b) the proper shipping name prescribed for each hazardous material; 

(c) the hazard class prescribed for each hazardous material; 

(d) the total net mass per package of each hazardous material; and, 

(e) the number and type of packages containing hazardous material. 

9. Ridan ottered the above-described shipment of hazardous material for 

transportation by air and tailed to: 

(a) certify that the materials were in accordance with the HMR (49 C.F.R. §§ 

171, et !ifC.!.) by printing on the shipping papers the cetiification set forth in § I 72.204( a)( I), 

!72.204(a)(2), or § 172.204(c) of the HMR; 

(b) prepare the required certifications in duplicate; and, 

(c) ... add to the certifi£,atiol!J~<J.uired inthi~_.section the following statement: "I 

- -··aecla'fe that'aH of the applicable air transport requirements have been met." 

I 0. Rid an offered the above-described shipment of hazardous materials for 

transportation by air when: 
(a) the outer container was not marked with the proper shipping name of each 

hazardous material contained therein; and 

(b) the outer container was not marked with the assigned identification 

number of each hazardous material contained therein. 

II. Ridan offered the above-described shipment of hazardous material for 

transportation by air and failed to make emergency response information available for use at all 

times the hazardous material was present. 

12. Ridan offered the above-described shipment of hazardous material for 

transportation by air and failed to make an emergency response telephone number immediately 

available to the appropriate oftlcial person designated to respond to an incident involving a 

hazardous material, or who was conducting an investigation involving a hazardous material. 

13. Ridan offered the above-described shipment of hazardous material for 

transportation by air and failed to ensure that each of its hazmat employees was trained in 

accordance with the prescribed requirements as set forth in Section 172.704. 

III. 

14. By reason of the above, Ridan violated the following Department of 

Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations): 

1. Section 171 .2( e) in that Ridan offered or transported a hazardous material for 

transportation in commerce when the hazardous material was not properly classed, described, 

packaged, marked, labeled, and in condition for shipment as required or authorized by applicable 

requirements of this subchapter, or an exemption, approval, or registration issued under this 

subchapter or under subchapter A ofthis chapter. 

2. Sections 172.200(a) and 172.202(a)(l) in that Ridan offered a hazardous material 

for transportation and failed to describe the hazardous material on shipping papers including the 

identification number prescribed for the material as shown in Column 4 of the § 172.101 Table, 

in the manner required by this subpart. 

3. Sections 172.200(a) and 172.202(a)(2) in that Ridan offered a hazardous material 

for transportation and failed to describe the hazardous material on shipping papers including the 

proper shipping name prescribed for the material as shown in Column 2 of the§ 172.101 Table. 

4. Sections 172.200(a) and 172.202(a)(3) in that Ridan offered a hazardous material 

for transportation and failed to describe the hazardous material on shipping papers including the 

hazard class or division number prescribed for the material as shown in Column 3 of the § 

172.101 Table. 
5. Sections 172.200(a) and 172.202(a)(6) in that Ridan offered a hazardous material 

for transportation by aircraft and failed to describe the hazardous material on shipping papers 

showing the total mass per package, unless a gross mass is indicated in Columns (9A) or (9B) of 

the § 172.101 Table in which case the total gross mass per package must be shown; or , for 

Class 7 materials, the quantity of radioactive must be shown by activity. 

6. Sections 172.200(a) and 172.202(a)(7) in .that Ridan offered a hazardous material 

for transportation and failed to describe the hazardous material on shipping papers indicating the 

number and type of packages (for example, "12 drums"). 

7. Sections 172.204(a) or (c)(l) in that Ridan offered a hazardous material for 

transportation and failed to certify that the material was offered for transportation in accordance 

with this subchapter by printing on the shipping paper containing the required shipping 

description one of the certifications set forth in this part. 

8. Section 172.204(c)(2) in that Ridan offered a hazardous material to an aircraft 

operator for transportation by air and failed to provide two copies of the certification required in 

this section. 

9. Section 172.204(c)(3) in that Ridan offered for transportation by air a hazardous 

material authorized for air transportation and failed to add to the certification required in this 

section the following statement: "I declare that all of the applicable air transport requirements 

have been met." 

10. Section 172.301 (a) in that Ridan offered for transportation a hazardous material in 

a non-bulk packaging and failed to mark the package with the proper shipping name and 

identification number (preceded by "UN" or "NA", as appropriate) for the material as shown in 

the §172.101 table. 

11. Section 1 72.30l(b) in that Ridan offered for transportation a hazardous material 

and failed to mark each non-bulk package containing hazardous materials subject to the 

provisions of§ 172.203(k) of this part with the technical name in parentheses in association with 

the proper shipping name in accordance with the requirements and exceptions specified for 

display of technical descriptions on shipping papers in § 172.203(k) of this part. 

12. Section 172.400(a) in that Ridan offered for transportation a hazardous material in 

one of the packages or containment devices listed in this subpart and failed to label the package 

or containment device with the labels specified for the material in the § 172.1 01 Table and in this 

subpart. 

13. Section 172.600(c)(l) in that Ridan offered for transportation a hazardous 

material and failed to make the . emergency response information conforming to this subpart 

immediately available for use at all times the hazardous material was present. 
14. Section 172.600(c)(2) in that Ridan offered for transportation a hazardous 

material and failed to make emergency response information including the emergency response 

telephone number, immediately available to any government agency responding to an incident 

involving hazardous materials or conducting an investigation which involves a hazardous 

material. 

15. Sections 172.600 and 172.602(b )(2) in that Ridan offered for transportation a 

hazardous material for transportation and failed to make the emergency response information 

available for use away from the package containing the hazardous material. 

16. Sections 172.600 and 172.602(b)(3) in that Ridan offered for transportation a 

hazardous material and failed to present the emergency response information- (i) on a shipping 

paper; (ii) in a document, other than a shipping paper, that includes both the basic description 

and technical name of the hazardous material as required.. and the emergency response 

information required by this subpart (e.g., a material safety data sheet); or (iii) related to the 

information on a shipping paper, a written notification to the pilot-in-command, or a dangerous 

cargo manifest, in a separate document (e.g., an emergency response document), in a manner that 

cross-references the description of the hazardous material on the shipping paper with the 

emergency response information contained in the document. 

17. Section 172.604(a)( I) in that Ridan alTered a hazardous material for 

transportation and failed to provide a 24-hour emergency response telephone number (including 

the area code or international access code) which was monitored at all times the hazardous 

material was in transportation, including storage incidental to transportation, for use in the event 

of an emergency involving the hazardous material. 

18. Section 172.604(a)(2) in that Ridan otlered a hazardous material for 

transportation and failed to provide a 24-hour emergency response telephone number of a person 

who was either knowledgeable of the hazardous material being shipped and has comprehensive 

emergency response and incident mitigation infonnation for that material, or has immediate 

access to a person possessing such knowledge and infmmation for use in the event of an 

emergency involving the hazardous material. 

19. Section 172.604( a)(3) offered a hazardous material for transportation and failed to 

provide a 24-hour emergency response telephone number which was entered on a shipping paper 

in the manner required by this paragraph for usc in the event of an emergency involving the 

hazardous material. 

20. Section 172. 702(a) in that Rid an offered a hazardous material for transportation 

and failed to ensure that each of its hazmat employees was trained in accordance with the 

requirements prescribed in this subpart. 

21. Section 172.702(c)(2) in that Ridan offered a hazardous material for 

transportation and failed to ensure that a new hazmat employee, or an employee who changed 

job functions performed hazmat functions under the direct supervision of a properly trained and 

knowledgeable hazmat employee. 
22. Section 173.1 (b), ( 49 C.F.R. § 173.1 (b)), in that Ridan offered hazardous material for 

transportation which was not prepared in accordance with the Hazardous Materials Regulations, 

and it failed to instruct each of its officers, agents and employees having any responsibility for 

preparing hazardous materials for shipment as to applicable Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(49 C.F.R. §§ 171, ~seq.). 

23. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Section 5123(a), Ridan is subject to a civil penalty not 

lower than $250 ($450 for training-related violations), nor greater than $50,000 ($1 00,000 if 

death, serious illness, severe injury, or substantial property damage results), for each violation of 

the Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations. 

24. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty of$55,000 is 

appropriate. 

WHEREFORE, the Agency, by counsel respectfully requests that the Administrative Law Judge 

enter an order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $55,000. 

I 1\1:. Respectfully submitted this I"""' day of February, 2014. 

4~ ~ CHRISTOPHER R. STEVENSON 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

PLEASE NOTE: 

Pursuant to Title 14 CFR Section 13.209(a), you are required to file a written answer to this 

Complaint, or a written Motion to Dismiss if appropriate, not later than 30 days after the date 

shown on the Certificate of Service which follows. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Complaint has been mailed this date by Certified 

Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to the following: 

Hearing Docket Clerk 

FAA, AGC-430, Suite 2Wl 000 

Wilbur Wright Building 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

President 

Ridan Investments, Inc. 

I 8540 Minthorn Street 

Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 

Lawrence M. Burek, Esq. 

550 North Parkcenter Drive 

Suite 204 

Santa Ana, CA 92705 

~B?JflP~T!~em~ Legal Assistant 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

FEB 1 4 20:~ 

Dated 

(original+ I copy) 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 

RETURN WITHIN 30 DAYS TO' 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P. 0. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

Telephone: 

Facsimile: 

(404) 305~5200 

( 404) 305~5223 

DATE 

Subject: Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty (HM}, Case No. W 7 ~700:)3 

In reply to your Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, I elect to proceed as 

indicated by my check mark beside the numbered paragraph(s) below; 

1. [ ] I hereby submit the amount of the proposed civil penalty with the 

understanding that an order assessing a civil penalty will be issued in that 

amount >vithout further notice. I UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE WAIVED MY RIGHT TO A 

HEARING. 

2. [ ] I have paid the proposed civil penalty with a credit card over the 

Internet at the following website: bttp://www.pay.gov. 

I understand that an order assessing a civil penalty will be issued in the 

amount without further notice- I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT I AM WAIVING MY RIGHT 

TO A HEARING. 

3. [ ] I hereby submit evidence and information, demonstrating that a 

violation of the regulations did not occur as alleged or that the amount of 

the penalty is not warranted by the Clrcumstances. I UNDERSTAND THAT CHOOSING 

THIS OPTION WILL NOT AFFECT MY RIGHT TO A HEARING. 

4 . [ J I hereby submit information and records showing that I am 

financially unable to pay the proposed civil penalty, or that payment of the 

penalty would prevent me from continuing in business. I UNDERSTAND THAT 

CHOOSING THIS OPTION WILL NOT AFFECT MY RIGHT TO A HEARING. 

S. [ J I hereby request that the proposed civil penalty be assessed in 

the amount of -? and I submit the reasons for the reduction of 

the proposed amount. MY REQUEST CONSTITUTES MY AGREEMENT THAT IF THIS OFFER 

IS ACCEPTED BY THE FAA, AN ORDER ASSESSING CIVIL PENALTY IN THE AMOUNT I HAVE 

SPECIFIED MAY BE ISSUED WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE AND I WAIVE MY RIGHT TO A 

HEARING. IF MY OFFER IS NOT ACCEPTED, I UNDERSTAND MY RIGHT TO A HEARING WILL 

NOT BE AFFECTED. 

RECEfVED 

~-----------r 

! 

FEB 3 2014 I 

1~~----- J 

FAi\, RE(IlO~~At C(_;l :~<,r__:__ 

SOuTHERN REGION 
6. a. 

informal 

below. I 

HEARING. 

[ ) I hereby request to discuss this matter in person at an 

conference with an attorney from your office at the location checked 

UNDERSTAND THAT CHOOSING THIS OPTION WILL NOT AFFECT MY RIGHT TO A 

Check one: 

Office of the Regional Counsel in Atlanta, Georgia 

Flight Standards District Office in 

(See Attached List of FSDO Offices.) 

[ J Office of the Regional Counsel ln 

(See Attached List of Regional Offices.) 

OR 

b. I hereby request a telephonic informal conference. Please 

call me at the number listed below to make arrangements for the conference. 

Te .l epho:1e: 

Attorney/representative: 

t~ame: 

.Zl.ddress: 

_L~ISf().N~ , H. t~.wO.:+--. 

~a NDC~' ?a,\tQ_S\~ DL. ~\\n, 2u4 

0s\\\4 b\"\'0, G~ 0.2. TUS , . ' 
Exhibit 

"B" 
SERVED: March 4, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

RID AN INVESTMENTS, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA 2013- 1082 

PROCEDURAL ORDER 

In order to expedite the hearing in this matter, the parties shall comply with the 

Procedural Schedule set forth hereinbelow1

• The Rules of Practice for this proceeding 

are set forth in 14 C.P.R. Part 13, Subpart G, of the Federal Aviation Regulations2

. 

Those rules provide, inter alia, that the Respondent must file a written Answer or motion 

within thirty (30) days after service of the Complaint (l:'L~f,_R. § l3.2Q9_La.)}, that a ' 

general denial is deemed a failure to file an Answer(§ 13.209(e)), that failure to file an 

Answer without good cause is deemed an admission of each allegation in the Complaint 

(§ 13.209(f)), and that, absent agreement of the parties, a party seeking an extension of 

time must file a written motion not less than seven (7) days before the document is due, 

absent good cause shown(§ 13.213(a) and (b)). 

More specifically, 14 CFR § 13.209 (5:_) states: 

A person filing an answer shall admit, deny, or state that the person is without 

sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny, each numbered paragraph 

of the complaint. Any statement or allegation contained in the complaint that is 

not specifically denied in the answer may be deemed an admission of the truth of 

1 Materials filed in the FAA Hearing Docket (except for materials which are sealed) also available for 

viewing at http://"}v-ww.tefulations.gov. For additional information see: httn:l/dms.doU!ov. 2 TI1e Administrator's civil penalty decisions, along with indexes of the decisions, the Rules of Practice, as 

well as other materials relating to civil penalty cases, are available on the internet at: 

http:d11'Vl'l1\fba.gov!abozrt/oj]Ice __ org/headqztarters_qfficeslagu)Jo(.ac{judication/agc,IOO/civilyena!ty/; see 

also: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.govlcgilt/text/text-idx? c~ecfi'&tpl~lecfrbrowse/Titlel4/14tab _ 02. tpl. In 

addition, Thomson Reuters/West Publishing publishes Federal Aviation Decisions. Finally, the decisions 

are available through LEXIS (TRANS library) and WestLaw 9FTRAN-F AA database. For additional 

information, see the Web site. 

1 
that' allegation. A general denial of the complaint is deemed a failure to file an 

answer. 

Under FAA Order 2150.3B and the Rules governing these proceedings, the 

Agency attorney and the Respondent are encouraged to consider the possibility of 

settlement and compromise of this matter. 3 Compromise may be effected with or 

without a finding ofviolation (14 C.F.R. §13.16 (n) (1)). 

NOTE: This presiding Judge does not require "Discovery" be served on the 

Judge. Other Judges have different policies, but as long as this case is assigned to the 

undersigned presiding Judge the parties may, but are not required to, serve discovery on 

the undersigned. 

The judge will not discuss the case with any party, or representative on an ex 

parte basis. Administrative matters may be addressed to Staff Assistant, Pat Matthews 

[202-366-5121] (Patricia.Matthews@dQ.tgQV ). 

WHEREFORE, the parties be and are hereby ORDERED to adhere to the 

following procedural schedule: 

1. Venue shall be Long Beach, CA.; 

2. On or before May 9, 2014, the parties shall conclude all discovery including, but 

not limited to, depositions, document production, responses to production 

requests and/or interrogatories. If the parties cannot resolve a discovery dispute 

they shall submit the dispute to the undersigned for resolution in a timely manner; 

3. The parties shall be prepared to present this case at a hearing on or after May 9, 

20144

, subject to the availability of courtroom facilities. The specific date and 

time for the hearing will be forthcoming in a separate Order. 

4. The parties will have the opportunity to file Post-Hearing briefs and arguments 

pursuant to a schedule to be determined at the hearing. For gnidance, the 

following schedule is typically used: Complainant shall file its brief fifteen (15) 

days after receipt of the transcript; Respondent shall its brief fifteen (15) days 

thereafter; and any rebuttal brief by the Complainant shall be filed seven (7) days 

thereafter. 

3 "The public policy of favoring and encouraging settlement makes necessary the inadmissibility of 

settlement negotiations in order to foster frank discussions". Fiberglass Insulators. Inc. v Dupuy, 856 F. 2d 

652, 653 ( 4 Cir. 1988); Wright & Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence, §5302 (1980). Rule 

408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence excludes from evidence all statements made in the course of 

sett1ement negotiations. 

4 14 C.F.R. § 13.221 states: "The administrative law judge shall give each party at least 60 days notice of 

tbe date, time and location of the hearing." If the parties can agree on tentative hearing dates, they are 

encouraged to provide those dates to the court and/or Ms. Matthews in order to get the dates reserved on 

the judge's calendar. 

2 
5. Settled cases will not be removed from the hearing docket until the proper written 

pleading(s), consistent with the applicable rules,5 is received by the presiding . d 6 JU ge. 

6. The parties are advised that submissions sent to the street address of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Office of Hearings, may be delayed due to 

screening conducted by the U.S. Postal Service and/or other security agencies and 

may take up to four (4) weeks to be delivered. Additionally, submissions may be 

"irradiated", which affects the quality of submissions. The parties are 

encouraged, but not required, to file submissions by private delivery service, 

facsimile, or email. The certificate of service shall reflect the manner of service. 

The parties are encouraged to provide email addresses to expedite service of 

pleadings. 

7. All documents are to be submitted to the undersigned as follows: 

HON. Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Attn: Patricia Matthews 

(Richard.Goodwig(i!'ldQt.gov) 

Administrative matters should be directed to Patricia Matthews, Staff Assistant 

(202) 366-5121 (Patricia.Matthews@.dourov). 

All other matters should be addressed in writing/email to Judge Goodwin. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment- Service List 

5 14 C.P.R.§ 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency attorney may withdraw a 

complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing without the consent of the administrative law 

judge. If an agency attorney withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the 

answer, the administrative law judge shall dismiss the proceedings under this subpart with prejudice." 

6 See: In the Matter of Lewis Drake & Associates, FAA Docket No. CP03S00045, DMS. No. FAA-2003-

16379, "Order Terminating Proceeding", served February 26, 2005; citing Kerry James Eldridge, FAA 

Docket CP89GL0458, "Order Canceling Hearing and Terminating Proceeding", served January 16, 1991, 

at I. 

3 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 

President 

Ridan Investments, Respondent 

18540 Minthorn Street 

Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 

TEL: NOT PROVIDED 

FAX: NOT PROVIDED 

ONE COPY 

Lawrence M. Burek, Respondent's Counsel 

550 North Parkcenter Drive, Suite 204 

Santa Ana, CA 92705 

TEL: 714-564-9033 

FAX: NOT PROVIDED 

Tammy Leach 

P.O. Box 891324 

Temecula, CA 92589 

TEL: 951-970-6762 

FAX: NOT PROVIDED 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, Southern Region, AS0-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-1082 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by exp~ited 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. 

4 
Exhibit 

"C" 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION .2 4 2014 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION FAA DOCKET NO. TBA 

FDMS NO. FAA-2013-1082 

Complainant CASE NO. 201250700133 

vs. Assigned to Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

RIDAN INVESTMENTS, INC. 

Respondent 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

Respondent, Ridan Investments, Inc. ("Ridan"), by its attorney, hereby files 

its Answer to the Complaint filed by Complainant Federal Aviation Administration 

("FAA") pursuant to Rule 209 of the Rules of Practice (14 C.F.R. 13.209) as 

follows: 

1. Answering paragraph 1, Ridan lacks sufficient information and belief 

to admit or deny the allegation as to when the Agency Attorney received a written 

request for a hearing and denies on that basis. Rid an admits that it received 

notice after January 14, 2014 through a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty 

that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of $55,000. 

II 

2. Answering paragraph 2, Rid an lacks sufficient information and belief to 

admit or deny the allegations and denies on that basis. Rid an denies that it knowingly 

offered a one-piece shipment to Federal Express on February 19, 2012 that contained 

hazardous materials. 

3. Answering paragraph 2 (misnumbered), Ridan lacks sufficient information 

and belief to admit or deny the allegations and denies on that basis. Rid an denies that 

it, as opposed to different entity that shared the same address, offered the alleged 

shipment for transportation. 

4. Answering paragraph 3. Rid an lacks sufficient information and belief to 
admit or deny t~e allegations and denies on that basis. 

5. Answering paragraph 4, Rid an lacks sufficient information and belief to 

admit of deny the allegations and denies on that basis. 

6. Answering paragraph 5, Ridan lacks sufficient information and belief to 

admit of deny the allegations and denies on that basis. 

7. Answering paragraph 6, Ridan lacks sufficient information and belief to 

admit of deny the allegations and denies on that basis. 

8. Answering paragraph 7, Rid an lacks sufficient information and belief to 

admit or deny the allegations and denies on that basis. 

9. Answering paragraph 8, Rid an lacks sufficient information and belief to 

admit or deny the allegations and denies on that basis. Rid an denies that it, as 

opposed to different entity that shared the same address, offered the alleged shipment. 

10. Answering paragraph 9, Rid an lacks sufficient information and belief to 

admit or deny the allegations and denies on that basis. Rid an denies that it, as 

opposed to different entity that shared the same address, offered the alleged shipment 

11. Answering paragraph 10, Rid an lacks sufficient information and belief to 

admit or deny the allegations and denies on that basis. Riden denies that it, as 

opposed to different entity that shared the same address, offered the alleged shipment .. 

12. Answering paragraph 11, Rid an lacks sufficient information and belief to 

admit or deny the allegations and denies on that basis. Rid an denies that it, as 

opposed to different entity that shared the same address, offered the alleged shipment. 

13 Answering paragraph 12, Rid an lacks sufficient information and belief to 

admit or deny the allegations and denies on that basis. Rid an denies that it, as 

opposed to different entity that shared the same address, offered the alleged shipment. 

14. Answering paragraph 13, Ridan lacks sufficient information and belief to 

admit or deny the allegations and denies on that basis. Rid an denies that it, as 

opposed to different entity that shared the same address, offered the alleged shipment. 

Ill 

15. Answering paragraph 14 and all of its subparts.(subparagraphs1-24, 

inclusive) Ridan incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 2-13, above. 

Ridan denies that it, as opposed to a different entity that shared the same address, 

offered the alleged shipment and denies that a civil penalty of $55,000 is appropriate 

under the facts and circumstances of this case .. As to all other allegations in paragraph 

14 and its subparts, (subparagraphs 1-24, inclusive) Ridan lacks sufficient information 

and belief to admit or deny the allegations and denies on that basis. 
WHEREFORE, Ridan, through its attorney, respectfully requests that an order be 

entered denying the FAA's request that Ridan be assessed a civil penalty in the amount 

of $55,000, or any amount at all 

Rid an further requests that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 

14 C.F .R 13.16 c (subsections 1-3) as Rid an did not knowingly ship the alleged 

materials but rather, it has determined that the identity of the sender was incorrectly 

entered in the online Fed Ex form and that the correct name of the sender/shipper was 

not entered. Rid an did not know the contents of the alleged shipment. It is a real estate 

investment company and is not engaged in the business of packaging, manufacturing, 

selling, distributing, or shipping hazardous materials of any kind. Accordingly, Ridan 

does not, and could not, have a history of any prior violations. 

Respectfully submitted this 17'h day of March, 2014. 

By:~~~~ LAWRENCE M. BUREK 

Attorney for Respondent Ridan Investments, Inc. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that an original and one copy of the foregoing document 

has been mailed on this date by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to the 

following: 

Hearing Docket Clerk 

AGC-430 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1 000 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document has been mailed on 

this date by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to the following: 

Christopher R. Stevenson 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

Tel: 404-305-5200 

Fax:404-305-5223 

HON. Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Attn: Patricia Matthews 
I hereby ,certify that a copy of the foregoing document has also been sent 

on this date electronically as an email attachment and in PDF format to the 

Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, U.S. Administrative Law Judge at 

Richard.Goodwin@dot.com pursuant to the Procedural Order dated March 4, 

2014. 

Executed this 181

h day of March, 2014 at S 

Lega ssistant 

Law Office of Lawrence M. Burek 

Attorney for Respondent 

Ridan Investments, Inc. 
Exhibit 

"D" 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of: 

Ridan Investments, Inc., 

Respondent. 

) FAA Docket No. [TBA] 

) FDMS No. FAA-2013-1082 

) FAA Case No. 2012S0700133 

) 

) Judge: Richard C. Goodwin 

) 

) Region: Western-Pacific 

) 

) 

) AMENDED NOTICE OF 

) APPEARANCE 

) 

Pursuant to section 13 .3 3 of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 

the, Federal Aviation Administration, hereby amends its original Notice of Appearance 

and designates the following Attorney as conosel in the captioned case: 

Courtney Adolph, Attorney 

Office of the Regional Conosel, A WP-7.4 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

Phone (310) 725-7128 

Facsimile (31 0) 725-6816 

Email: Courtney .Adolph@faa,gov 

Respectfully submitted, 

NAOMI TSUDA 

Regional Conosel 

By: MJ----

Courtney Adolph 

General Attorney 
ERRATA SHEET 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The amended Notice of Appearance is being issued to correct the FDMS No. 

cited on the caption page. 

I hereby certify that the attached Notice of Appearance in the Matter ofRidan 

Investments, Inc., has been sent to the following parties, via certified mail, return 

receipt requested, or via facsimile where indicated below. 

Hon. Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, DB 20590 

Attn: Patricia Matthews 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Via Certified Mail to: 

Lawrence M. Burek (Counsel for the Respondent) 

550 North Parkcenter Drive, Suite 204 

And to: 

Santa Ana, CA 92705 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn.: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 

FAX:202-493-5142 

/] ·' -j/(}; 

£~h~XfM<bo, toma Garcm 

Paralegal, Enforcement 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Lawndale, California 90261 

Dated: April15, 2014 

2 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

W ASIDNGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of: 

Ridan Investments, Inc., 

Respondent. 

) FAA Docket No. [TBA] 

) FDMS No. FAA-2013-1082 

) FAA Case No. 2012S0700133 

) 

) Judge: Richard C. Goodwin 

) 

) Region: Western-Pacific 

) 

) 

) AMENDED NOTICE OF 

) APPEARANCE 

) 

Pursuant to section 13.33 of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 

the, Federal Aviation Administration, hereby amends its original Notice of Appearance 

and designates the following Attorney as counsel in the captioned case: 

Courtney Adolph, Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AWP-7.4 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

Phone (310) 725-7128 

Facsimile (310) 725-6816 

Email: Courtney.Adolph@faa,gov 

Respectfully submitted, 

NAOMI TSUDA 

Regional Cotmsel 

By: 

Courtney Adolph 

General Attorney 
m <fim ID •<> ru~ & IE' ID .f~ ,u ~ ~~ ID 

~ u ...... ·;:; l'::s ~ 

0 ID ·$g ,o ~ 0- \E ,ru 0~ ~oc ID 

ID &, 8<:: ~ 

u co ]~ * "E 0 i'o :g ~ 0-

£~ w_g j! u 

"' c &:~ "' Lhc'..2 66'U. DODO O'WI E'IOL 
ERRATA SHEET 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The amended Notice of Appearance is being issued to correct the FDMS No. 

cited on the caption page. 

I hereby certify that the attached Notice of Appearance in the Matter ofRidan 

Investments, Inc., has been sent to the following parties, via certified mail, return 

receipt requested, or via facsimile where indicated below. 

Hon. Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DB 20590 

Attn: Patricia Matthews 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Via Certified Mail to: 

Lawrence M. Burek (Counsel for the Respondent) 

550 North Parkcenter Drive, Suite 204 

And to: 

Santa Ana, CA 92705 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn.: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 

FAX:202-493-5142 

Antonia 

(:a~t::i~ Garcia 

Paralegal, Enforcement 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Lawndale, California 90261 

Dated: April15, 2014 

2 
TRANSMISSION OK 

TX/RX NO 

********************* 

*** TX REPORT *** 

********************* 

1141 

CONNECTION TEL 912024935142 

SUBADDRESS 

CONNECTION ID 

ST. TIME 04/15 09:45 

USAGE T 00'25 

PGS. SENT 3 

RESULT OK 

Hon. Richard C. Goodwin 

To: Attn: Patricka Matthews 

Company: Office of Hearings, M-20, US DOT 

Phone: 

Fax: _(_202) 366-7536 

From: Courtney Adolph 

Title: Attorney 

Date: 4/14/15 

Description of 

item being 

transmitted: 

Amended Notice of Apperance 

In the Matter of Ridan 

Investments, Inc., FDMS No. 

FAA-2013-1 082 

FAA Case No. 201250700133 

FAA Docket No. TBD 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AWP· 

7.4 

PO Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

Telephone: (310) 725· 7128 

Facsimile: (310) 725-68l6 

Email: Counney.Adolph@tlla.gov 

Facsimile 

Total Number of pages including the 

cover page: 3 

D PER YOUR REQUEST 0 FOR YOUR REVIEW D PLEASE COMMENT 

D FOR COORDINATION 0 HARD COPY TO FOLLOW VIA US M.A.IL 

NOTES/COMMENTS: 
TRANSMISSION OK 

********************* 

*** TX REPORT *** *******~************* 

TX/RX NO 1140 

CONNECTION TEL 

SUBADDRESS 

CONNECT! ON ID 

ST. TIME 

912023667536 

04/15 09:43 

USAGE T 01'17 

PGS. SENT 

RESULT 

3 

OK 

To: 

Company: 

Phone: 

fax: 

From: 

Title; 

Date: 

Description of 

item being 

transmitted: 

Han. Richard C. Goodwin 

AttM: Patricka Matthews 

Office of Hearings M-20, US DOT 

(202) 366-7536 

Courtnev Adoloh 

Attorney 

4/14/15 

Amended Not1ce of Apperance 

In the Matter of Ridan 

Investments, Inc., FDMS No. 

FAA-2013-1082 

FAA Case No. 201290700133 

FAA Docket No. TBD 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, A WP7.4 

PO Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

Telephone: (310) 725"7128 

facsimile: (310) 725-6816 

Email: Courtney.Adolph@faa.gov 

Facsimile 

Total Nwnber of pages including the 

cover page: 3 

0 PER YOUR REQUEST 0 FOR YOUR REVIEW 0 PLEASE COMMENT 

D FOR COORDINATION D HARD COPY TO FOLLOW VIA US MAIL 

NOTES/COMMENTS: 
To: 

Company: 

Phone: 

Fax: 

From: 

Title: 

Date: 

Description of 

item being 

transmitted: 

Hon. Richard C. Goodwin 

Attn: Patricka Matthews 

Office of HearinQs, M-20, US DOT 

(202) 366-7536 

Courtney Adolph 

Attorney 

4/14/15 

Amended Not1ce of Apperance 

In the Matter of Ridan 

Investments, Inc., FDMS No. 

FAA-2013-1082 

FAA Case No. 201280700133 

FAA Docket No. TBD 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AWP7.4 

PO Box92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

Telephone: (310) 725-7128 

Facsinaile: (310) 725-6816 

Email: Courtney.Ado1ph@faa.gov 

Facsimile 

Total Nmnber of pages including the 

cover page: 3 

D PER YOUR REQUEST D FOR YOUR REVIEW D PLEASE COMMENT 

D FOR COORDINATION D HARD COPY TO FOLLOW VIA US MAIL 

NOTES/COMMENTS: 

cc: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 (Hard copy to follow in the U.S. mail) 

(202) 493-5142 

Lawrence Burek Hard copy sent in the U.S. mail 

0 U.S. D<:partmont of Transpo·rtat:lon 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of: 

Ridan Investments, Inc., 

Respondent. 

) 

) NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FAA Docket No. [TBA] 

FAA Region: Western-Pacific FrV< ~ 2

b13 

Jndge: Richard C. Goodwin~ lc'l2 

FDMSNo.~ll ~ FAA Case No. 2012S0700133 

Pursuant to section 13.33 of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 

the, Federal Aviation Administration, hereby designates the following Attorney as 

counsel in the captioned case: 

Courtney Adolph, Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel, A WP-7 .4 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

Phone (310) 725-7128 

Facsimile (31 0) 725-6816 

Email: Courtney.Adolph@faa,gov 

Respectfully submitted, 

NAOMI TSUDA 

Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Western-Pacific Region 

By: k~ Cou ey Adolph 

Attorney 
6h~~ 0559 2000 0~22 2~0~ 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the attached Notice of Appearance in the Matter ofRidan 

Investments, Inc., has been sent to the following parties, via certified mail, return 

receipt requested, or via facsimile where indicated below. 

Hon. Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, DB 20590 

Attn: Patricia Matthews 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Lawrence M. Burek (Counsel for the Respondent) 

550 North Parkcenter Drive, Suite 204 

Santa Ana, CA 92705 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn.: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 

FAX: 202-493-5142 

Antonia 

at~;L Garcia ' ' 

Paralegal, Enforcement 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Lawndale, California 90261 

Dated: April 7, 2014 

2 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of: 

Ridan Investments, Inc., 

Respondent. 

) 

) NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FAA Docket No. [TBA] 

FAA Region: Western-Pacific 

Judge: Richard C. Goodwin 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0911 

FAA Case No. 2012S0700133 

Pursuant to section 13.33 of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 

the, Federal Aviation Administration, hereby designates the following Attorney as 

counsel in the captioned case: 

Courtney Adolph, Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AWP-7.4 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

Phone (310) 725-7128 

Facsimile (310) 725-6816 

Email: Courtney.Adolph@faa,gov 

Respectfully submitted, 

/ 

./",... 

NAO~l'TSUDA 

R~giilnal Counsel 

,'F~deral Aviation Administration 

.//Western-Pacific Region 

#''"' 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of: 

Ridan Investments, Inc., 

Respondent. 

) 

) NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FAA Docket No. [TBA] 

FAA Region: Western-Pacific 

Judge: Richard C. Goodwin 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0911 

FAA Case No. 2012S0700133 

Pursuant to section 13.33 of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 

the, Federal Aviation Administration, hereby designates the following Attorney as 

counsel in the captioned case: 

Courtney Adolph, Attorney 

Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AWP-7.4 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

Phone (310) 725-7128 

Facsimile (310) 725-6816 

Email: Courtney.Adolph@faa,gov 

Respectfully submitted, 

NAOMI TSUDA 

Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Western-Pacific Region 

By: 

Courtney Adolph 

Attorney 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the attached Notice of Appearance in the Matter of Ridan 

Investments, Inc., has been sent to the following parties, via certified mail, return 

receipt requested, or via facsimile where indicated below. 

Hon. Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, DB 20590 

Attn: Patricia Matthews 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Lawrence M. Burek (Counsel for the Respondent) 

550 North Parkcenter Drive, Suite 204 

Santa Ana, CA 92705 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn.: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 

FAX: 202-493-5142 

Antonia Garcia 

Paralegal, Enforcement 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Lawndale, California 90261 

Dated: April 7, 2014 

2 
TRANSMISSION OK 

TX/RX NO 

********************* 

*** TX REPORT *** 

********************* 

1138 

CONNECTION TEL 912023667536 

SUBADDRESS 

CONNECTION ID 

ST. TIME 04/14 12:09 

USAGE T 01'19 

PGS. SENT 3 

RESULT OK 

To~ Hon. Richard C. Goodwin 

Compllll)': Office of HearinRs M-20, US DOT 

Phone: 

Fax: (202) 366-7536 

From: Courtney Adolph 

Title: Attorney 

Date: 4/14/15 . 

Description of 

item being 

transmitted: 

Not1ce of Apperance In the 

Matter of Rldan Investments, 

Inc., FDMS No. FAA-2012·0911 

FAA Case No. 201280700133 

FAA Docket No. TBD 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AWP7.4 

POBox 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

Telephone: (310) 725-7128 

Fac•imlle: (310) 725·6816 

Email: Courtney.Adolph@faa.gov 

Facsimile 

Total Number of pages including the 

cover page: 3 

0 PER YOUR REQUEST D FOR YOUR REVIEW D PLEASE COMMENT 

D FOR COORDINATION D HARD COPY TO FOLLOW VIA US MP..IL 

NOTES/COMMENTS: 

cc: Hearing Docket Cletk, AGC-430 ~d copy to follow in the U.S. mail) 
To: 

Company: 

Phone: 

Fax: 

From: 

Title: 

Date: 

Description of 

item being 

transmitted: 

Hen. Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20, US DOT 

(202) 366-7536 

Courtney Adolph 

Attorney 

4/14/15 

Not1ce of Apperance In the 

Matter of Ridan Investments, 

Inc., FDMS No. FAA-2012-0911 

FAA Case No. 201250700133 

FAA Docket No. TBD 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, A WP7.4 

PO Box92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

Telephone: (310) 725-7128 

Facsimile: (310) 725-6816 

Email: Courtney.Adolph@faa.gov 

Facsimile 

Total Number of pages including the 

cover page: 3 

D PER YOUR REQUEST D FOR YOUR REVIEW D PLEASE COMMENT 

D FOR COORDINATION D HARD COPY TO FOLLOW VIA US MAIL 

NOTES/COMMENTS: 

cc: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 (Hard copy to follow in the U.S. mail) 

(202) 493-5142 

Lawrence Burek Hard copy sent in the U.S. mail) 

0 U.S. De-partment ofTran.spo-rtatlon 
TRANSMISSION OK 

TX/RX NO 

********************* 

*** TX REPORT *** 

********************* 

1139 

CONNECTION TEL 912024935142 

SUBADDRESS 

CONNECTION ID 

ST. Tn!E 04/14 12:11 

USAGE T 00'24 

PGS. SENT 3 

RESULT OK 

To: Hon. Richard C. Goodwin 

Company; Office of Hearings, M-20, US DOT 

.Phone: 

Fax: (202) 366-7536 

From: Courtney Adolph 

Title: Attorney 

Date: 4/14/15 

Description of 

item being 

transmitted: 

Notice of Apperance In the 

Matter of Ridan Investments, 

Inc., FDMS No. FAA-2012-0911 

FAA Case No. 201250700133 

FAA Docket No. TBD 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, A WP7.4 

PO Box 92007 

Los A1Jgeles, CA 90009-2007 

Telephone: (310) 725·7128 

Facsimile: (310) 725-6816 

Email: Courtney.Adolph@faa.gov 

Facsimile 

Total Number of pages including the 

cover page: 3 

0 PER YOUR REQUEST D FOR YOUR REVIEW D PLEASE COMMENT 

0 FOR COORDINATION D HARD COPY TO FOLLOW VIA US MI'.IL 

NOTESICOMMENTS; 

cc: He-Ming Docket Clerk, AGC-430 (Hard copy to follow in the U.S. n;nill 
Exhibit 

"E" 
In the Matter of: 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPART ME NT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

FAA Docket No.: [TBA] 

Ridan Investments, Inc., FAA Region: Western-Pacific 

Respondent. Judge: Richard C. Goodwin 

FDMS No.: FAA-2012-0911 

FAA Case No.: 2012S0700133 

COMPLAINANT'S FIRST SET OF 

DISCOVERY TO RESPONDENT 

To Respondent, Ridan Investments, Inc., through its attorneys of record: 

Complainant, by and through counsel, pursuant to section 13.220 ofthe Rules of Practice 

in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, requests the Respondent please respond to the following 

Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Request for Admissions, separately 

and fully under oath, within thirty (30) days of the date of service. 

These discovery requests are intended to be continuing in nature and any information 

which may be discovered by Respondent subsequent to the service and filing of Respondent's 

answers must be brought to the attention of the Complainant's attorney through supplemental 

answers when it becomes available to Respondent, and in a reasonable time prior to the hearing 

in this matter. If there are any additions, deletions or changes in the answers or information 

provided at any time prior to hearing, the Respondent is specifically requested to so immediately 

inform Complainant's attorney. If such information is not furnished, at the time of the hearing, 

1 

} 

) 

) 
Complete items 1, 2, anCf3:"J\fSo complete 

item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. 

• Print your name and address on the reverse 

so that we can return the card to you. 

• Attach this card to the back of the mail piece, 

or on the front if space permits. 

1. Article Addressed to: 

kM0JZ.£rJC'£ 1\A {?worek, £sl -~ C'jo __ J':io\u.., J0ves~ ,J~·, 

660 Nor-\h ~"ck~ 

2. 

q.e_. U'\-

5ctr\+t< Anc. CA _ "'}:;nos- ; 

If YES, enter delivery address below: 

3. S~ice Type 

El Certified Mail 

0 Registered 

0 Insured Mail 

Domestic Return Receipt 

Yes 

ONo 

102595·02·M·1540! 
the attorney for Complainant may move to exclude from evidence such information requested 

and not furnished. 

If, in responding to, or failing to respond to these requests for discovery Respondent 

invokes or relies upon any privilege of any kind, state specifically the nature of the privilege, the 

basis upon which Respondent invokes, relies upon or claim it, including any statutory or 

decisional reference, and identify all documents or other information, including contacts and 

communications which Respondent believes to be covered by the privilege invoked. 

INTERROGATORIES: 

1. Identify by name, address and telephone number all persons, other than Respondent's 

attorneys, who have personal knowledge of the incidents alleged in the Complaint. 

2. Identify by title, date, author, present custodian, and content, all documents obtained by 

Respondent or in its possession relating to the assertions in the Complaint and 

Respondent's Answer, including affirmative defenses. 

3. Identify by name, address and telephone number, all persons whom Respondent may 

have testify as a factual witness in its defense at the hearing in this matter, and provide a 

detailed summary of each person's anticipated testimony. 

4. Identify by name, address and telephone number, all persons whom Respondent may 

have testify as an expert witness in its defense at the hearing in this matter, and provide a 

detailed summary of each expert's anticipated testimony. 

5. Identify by title, date, author, present custodian, and content, which documents 

Respondent may offer into evidence at the hearing in this matter, and through which 

witness or witnesses. 

2 
6. With respect to each expert witness identified in response to Interrogatory No.4, above, 

specify their area of expertise, if any, and provide a synopsis oftheir credentials, 

background, training and experience. 

7. State all facts that support Respondent's contentions in paragraph II.2. of its Answer that 

it did not "knowingly offered a one-piece shipment to Federal Express on February 19, 

2012 that contained hazardous materials". 

8. State all facts that support Respondent's contentions in paragraphs II.3., 9., 10., 11., 12., 

13., 14., and III.15 of its Answer that a "different entity that shared the same address, 

offered the alleged shipment for transportation". 

9. Please describe all facts that explain or otherwise describe the corporate or business 

relationship, if any, between a different entity that shares the same address as Ridan 

Investments, Inc. 

10. Please state whether Ridan Investments, Inc., offered the subject shipment on behalf of 

Motoworks Racing, LLC; Douglas Technologies Group, Inc.; DWT; or Cahuilla Creek 

Motorcross, Inc. 

11. Please state whether an employee or someone acting on behalf of Motoworks Racing, 

LLC; Douglas Techonologies Group, Inc.; DWT; or Cahuilla Creek Motorcross, Inc., 

offered the subject shipment. 

12. Please explain or otherwise describe the corporate or business relationship between Ridan 

Investment, Inc., and Motoworks Racing, LLC; Douglas Techonologies Group, Inc.; 

DWT; or Cahuilla Creek Motorcross, Inc. 

13. State all facts that support Respondent's contentions in the last paragraph on page 3 of its 

Answer that "Ridan did not knowingly ship the alleged materials but rather, it has 

3 
determined that the identity of the sender was incorrectly entered in the online FedEx 

form and that the correct name of the sender/shipper was not entered. Ridan did not 

know the contents of the alleged shipment. It is a real estate investment company and is 

not engaged in the business of packaging, manufacturing, selling, distributing, or 

shipping hazardous materials of any kind." 

14. Identify whether Respondent relied on an MSDS, including whether that MSDS was the 

current and applicable MSDS for the alleged hazardous material at issue in this case. 

15. State all facts that support Respondent's contention that it is not liable for any civil 

penalty under Section 5123(a) of Title 49 of the United States Code. 

16. State all facts that support Respondent's contention that a civil penalty of$55,000 is not 

appropriate under the facts and circumstances of this case. 

17. State all any and all additional facts that support any and all of Respondent's affirmative 

defenses. 

18. Please provide a detailed explanation, including reference to what accounting methods, 

liquidity ratios, financial calculations, etc., if any, which supports an assertion that 

Respondent cannot afford to pay the proposed civil penalty. 

19. Please identify on what financial documents you may rely to support an assertion that 

Respondent cannot afford to pay the proposed civil penalty. 

20. For any response to the Request for Admission below that is anything other than an 

unqualified admission, please state all facts in support of Respondent's response. 

4 
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS: 

1. Provide a copy of all written statements/affidavits/declarations of individuals identified in 

response to interrogatory number 1, unless already provided. 

2. Provide a copy of any and all recorded statements of any witnesses having personal 

knowledge of the incidents alleged in the Complaint and Respondent's affirmative 

defenses alleged in its Answer including, but not limited to, written statements, affidavits, 

e-mails, letters, tape or video recordings and transcriptions of the tape recordings, unless 

already provided. 

3. Provide a copy of all documents in support of any and all of Respondent's responses and 

affirmative defenses pled in its Answer, unless already provided. 

4. Provide a copy of the current curriculum vitae for each and every expert Respondent may 

have testify in Respondent's defense at the hearing in this matter. 

5. Provide any and all documents Respondent's experts may rely upon to testify in 

Respondent's defense at the hearing on this matter. 

6. Provide any and all documents that support Respondent's contention that it is not liable 

for any civil penalty under Section 5123(a) of the Title 14 of the United States Code. 

7. Provide any and all documents that support Respondent's contention that the proposed 

civil penalty is inappropriate. 

8. Provide any and all documents that support Respondent's contention that it did not 

violate any Hazardous Materials Regulations under Title 49 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, part I 71 et seq. 

5 
9. Provide a copy of any and all documents that support Respondent's contention that the 

federal regulations cited in the Complaint are not applicable to the shipment at issue or 

facts and circumstances of this case. 

10. Please provide a copy of your 2011,2012 and 2013 filed federal tax returns. 

11. Please provide a copy of any and all evidence that supports your assertion that you are 

unable to pay the proposed civil penalty. 

12. For all responses which are not an unequivocal admission to the below Request for 

Admission, provide all documents, notes, and writings which support Respondent's 

denials. 

6 
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS: 

1. Admit that "MOTUL Chain Lube- Off Road" is a regulated hazardous material under 

Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

2. Admit that "K&N Air Filter Oil" is a regulated hazardous material under Title 49 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations. 

3. Admit that the "MOTUL Chain Lube- Off Road" is a flammable aerosol. 

4. Admit that "K&N Air Filter Oil" is a flammable aerosol. 

5. Admit that "MOTUL Chain Lube- Off Road's" proper shipping name is "Aerosol, 

flammable, n.o.s." under the Hazardous Materials Table at Title 49 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, section 171.101. 

6. Admit that "K&N Air Filter Oil's" proper shipping name is "Aerosol, flammable, n.o.s." 

under the Hazardous Materials Table at Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

section 171.1 0 1. 

7. Admit that "MOTUL Chain Lube- Off Road" is in Hazard Class 2.1. 

8. Admit that "K&N Air Filter Oil" is in Hazard Class 2.1. 

9. Admit that "MOTUL Chain Lube- Off Road's" proper label is "FLAMMABLE GAS". 

10. Admit that "K&N Air Filter Oil's" proper label is "FLAMMABLE GAS". 

11. Admit that "MOTUL Chain Lube- Off Road's" has an assigned identification number of 

UN1950. 

12. Admit that "K&N Air Filter Oil's" has an assigned identification number ofUN1950. 

13. Admit that Respondent offered the subject shipment for transportation by air. 

14. Admit that Respondent did not include shipping papers with the subject shipment. 

7 
15. Admit that Respondent did not provide any description of the hazardous material on 

shipping papers. 

16. Admit that there was a release of the alleged hazardous materials during shipment. 

17. Admit that Respondent failed to properly package the shipment. 

18. Admit that Respondent did not package the shipment in accordance with the packaging 

requirements under Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 173.l(b). 

19. Admit that the subject shipment was undeclared. 

20. Admit that Respondent is a business entity that regularly offers, accepts, or transports 

hazardous materials. 

21. Admit that Respondent is the parent business entity of one or more subsidiaries that 

offers, accepts, or transports hazardous materials. 

22. Admit that Respondent is the parent business entity of one or more subsidiaries that 

regularly offers, accepts, or transports hazardous materials. 

23. Admit that Respondent is the holding company of one or more other companies that 

offers, accepts, or transports hazardous materials. 

24. Admit that Respondent is the holding company of one or more other companies that 

regularly offers, accepts, or transports hazardous materials. 

Respectfully submitted, 

NAOMI TSUDA 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

Adolph 

Gene a! Attorney 

8 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by certified mail, return-receipt requested 

Complainant's First Set of Discovery to Respondent, addressed as follows: 

Lawrence M. Burek, Esq. 

c/o Ridan Investments, Inc. 

550 North Parkcenter Drive, Suite 204 

Santa Ana, CA 92705 

Telephone: (714) 564-9033 

Dated: April 7, 2013 

~/fi&d,~~ Antonia L. Garcia 

Paralegal 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Western-Pacific Region 

Hawthorne, California 

9 
Exhibit 

"F" 
1 

2 

3 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

4 

5 IN THE MATTER OF 

6 RIDAN INVESTMENTS, INC. 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

RESPONDENT. 

RESPONSE OF RIDAN 

INVESTMENTS INC. TO 

COMPLAINANT'S FIRST SET OF 

DISCOVERY TO RESPONDENT 

FAA DOCKET NO. TBA 

FDMS NO. 2013-1082 

FAA CASE No. 2012S0700133 

Judge: Han. Richard C. Goodwin 

12 Respondent Rid an Investments, Inc. hereby responds to Complainant Federal 

13 Aviation Administration's first set of discovery to Respondent Rid an Investment. Inc. 

14 ("Ridan") 

15 Ridan objects generally and specifically to each and every request for 

16 production of documents, each and every special interrogatory and each and every 

17 request for admission because the discovery in its entirety is untimely. 

18 On March 4, 2014 a Procedural Order was issued and served which states in 

19 part: "[o]n or before May 9, 2014, the parties shall conclude all discovery including, but 

20 not limited to, depositions, document production, responses to production requests 

21 an/or interrogatories." 

22 Section 13.220 (d) ofTitle 14 C.F.R. states that "unless otherwise directed by 

23 this subpart or agreed by the parties, a party shall respond to a request for discovery, 

24 including filing objections to a request for discovery, not later than 30 days after 

25 service of the request." 

26 Section 13.211 (d) of Title 14 C.F.R states "[a]dditional time after service by 

27 mail. Whenever a party has a right or duty to act or to make any response within a 

28 prescribed period after service by mail, or on a date certain after service by mail, 5 

1 

RESPONSE OF RIDAN INVESTMENTS, INC. TO COMPLAINANT'S FIRST SET OF DISCOVERY 
1 days shall be added to the prescribed period." 

2 The Certificate of Service which was attached to Complainant's first set of 

3 discovery states that it was sent by certified mail, return-receipt requested on April 7, 

4 2014. 

5 When Sections 13.220 (d) and 13.211 (d) are read together in the context of the 

6 date Complainant's first set of discovery was mail served, Respondent Ridan has up 

7 to May 12, 2014 to respond - after the May 9, 2014 deadline for the conclusion of 

8 discovery as set forth in the Procedural Order. 

9 Ridan therefore objects to the Complainant's first set of discovery because it 

10 was served too late and violates the March 4, 2014 Order. 

11 

12 Dated: May\7.-, 2014 LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE M. BUREK 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

By·~~~'--- . LAWRENCE M. BIU~K Attorney for Respondent 

Ridan Investments, Inc. 

2 

RESPONSE OF RIDAN INVESTMENTS, INC. TO COMPLAINANT'S FIRST SET OF DISCOVERY 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing document has been mailed on this date 

by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to the following: 

Courtney Adolph 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AWP-7 .4 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

Executed this 121

h day of May, 2014 at 

Legal Assistant 

Law Office of Lawrence M. Burek 

Attorney for Respondent 

Ridan Investments, Inc. 
Exhibit 

"G" 
DECLARATION OF COURTNEY ADOLPH 

I, COURTNEY ADOLPH, declare as follows: 

All matters stated herein are within my own personal knowledge, and if called as a 

witness, I could and would competently testify as follows: 

I. I am an attorney in the Office of the Regional Counsel, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Western-Pacific Region, and I am assigned to represent Complainant 

in the instant matter against Ridan Investments, Inc., FDMS No. 2013-1082, FAA 

Case No.2012S0700133. 

2. This matter was transferred from Complainant's Office of the Regional Counsel in the 

Southern Region to Complainant's Office of the Regional Counsel in the WesternPacific Region because the March 4, 2014 Procedural Order set the location for a 

hearing in Long Beach, California. (See Exhibit B). 

3. During approximately the week of March 17, 2014, this matter was assigned to me. I 

prepared Complainant's First Set of Discovery to Respondent ("Discovery Requests") 

on or before April 4, 2014 and took pre-approved leave during the week of April 7, 

2014. 

4. On April 7, 2014, Complainant served a Notice of Appearance for the substitution of 

the Regional Offices' attorneys. (See Exhibit D). 

5. On the same day, Complainant also served the Discovery Requests on Respondent. 

(See Exhibit E). 

6. On or about May 19, 2014, Complainant received Respondent's Response to 

Complainant's Discovery Requests. (See Exhibit F). 
7. On May 23, 2014, I telephoned Respondent's counsel, Lawrence M. Burek, regarding 

Respondent's Response in an attempt to meet and confer and resolve this discovery 

dispute before filing this instant motion. 

8. To resolve this discovery dispute, during the meet and confer telephone call, I offered to 

stipulate to a joint request to extend discovery so that Respondent could also have an 

opportunity to serve discovery requests on Complainant. 

9. Although the meet and confer discussion was productive, it did not result in an 

agreement or stipulation for Respondent to answer Complainant's discovery requests 

or for a joint request to extend the discovery timeline. 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that 

the foregoing is true and correct. 

Signed this 23'd day of May 2014, in Hawthorne, CA.