JOHN ADAMS HODGE and ASSOCIATES, LLC 

Attorneys and Counselors at Law 

Environmental & Aviation Law 

136 Stonemark Lane, Suite 110 

Columbia, S.C. 29210 Mailing Address: 

John Adams Hodge, P.G. 

Sharon A. Hodge 

Telephone 803.783.9001/803.386.1504 

www.johnhodgelaw.com 

Post Office Box 25553 

Columbia, S.C. 29224 

The Honorable J. E. Sullivan 

United States Administrative Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (EI1-310) 

December 18,2014 

Washington, DC 20590 r A A , 2.0 13 ~ I 0 1 r 

RECEIVED 

JAN 0 5 2015 

HEARING DOCf"<ET 

Re: In Re: Rena~ssance jet Inc., Docket No. FAA-20~~ Case No. 2012EA290030 

Dear judge Sullivan: · 

Please find enclosed the Respondent's Reply to Agency's Response to Motion to Dismiss 

the aforementioned case on grounds of mootness. By copy of this letter and enclosures, we are 

also serving counsel for the Administrator with the motion. Please let me know if you have any 

questions. 

Thank you very much for your consideration. 

cc: Zachary Berman, Esquire 

Enclosures 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

JAN 0 5 2015 

HEARING DOCKET 

In the Matter of Renaiss:mce Jet, Inc. 

) 

______________________ ) ) 

Before Judge Sullivan 

FAA Case No. 2012EA390030 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0178 

RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS 

In reply to the FAA's response to the Motion to Dismiss filed on behalf of Renaissance Jet, Inc., 

counsel for the Respondent would show the Honorable Court the following: 

The FAA has characterized the status of Renaissance Jet, Inc. as solely having undergone 

a "name change" that would somehow make it or its successor liable for civil penalties assessed 

by the FAA pursuant to the case captioned as M &R Helicopters, LLC, FAA Order No. 2013-4 

(September 5, 20 13). This case is easily distinguishable from the M & R Helicopters case as it 

involves much more than solely a name change. 

The facts giving rise to the alleged violations arose out of operational deficiencies that are 

solely attributable to the acts and omissions of the prior owner of Renaissance Jet, Inc. and 

Renaissance Jet, LLC, Mr. Barry Stroud. In 2009, Mr. Stroud converted the corporate form of 

Renaissance Jet, Inc. to Renaissance Jet, LLC. The alleged violations that are relevant in this 

case occurred after Renaissance Jet, Inc. was dissolved. Mr. Stroud apparently failed to inform 

the FAA of this change in ownership. The name of the certificate holder remained in the name of 

the prior entity; however, filings with the North Carolina Secretary of State's office that were 

submitted as exhibits to the Motion to Dismiss clearly show that Renaissance Jet, LLC was a 

continuing entity for Renaissance Jet, Inc. 

When Renaissance Jet, LLC was dissolved in November 2014, there was no continuing 

entity. The company ceased to exist without a successor in interest. 

The certificate held by X8 Aviation bears little resemblance to that of the former 

Renaissance Jet, Inc. The aircraft that were on the old Renaissance Jet, Inc. certificate are not on 

the X8 Aviation certificate, the Operations Specifications are different, the FAA approved 

manuals governing the operation of the air carrier are different, there are different managers, and 

the operational control is with a different entity. 

Unlike M&M Helicopters, X8 Aviation is not just a name change of a prior entity, but it 

is an entirely different legal entity than the former Renaissance Jet, LLC. In addition, X8 

Aviation is not a successor in interest to Renaissance Jet, LLC, and it has no connection to that 

organization. 

While a November 12, 2014 letter provided by the FSDO to X8 Aviation refers to the 

issuance of the X8 Aviation certificate as a name change, such administrative transfer was done, 

on information and belief, as a convenience for the FAA. X8 Aviation did not request a name 
change as such. Rather than issue a new certificate, the FAA apparently chose to refer to the new 

certificate as a "name change" as a matter of its own convenience. What occurred was not 

merely a name change, but the issuance of an entirely new set Operations Specifications, a 

change in operational control, change in management, change in ownership, issuance of new 

manuals, and coverage for new and different aircraft and different types of aircraft. 

In any case, counsel for the Administrator has not set forth or enumerated sufficient facts 

sufficient to meet the test for piercing the corporate veil, and it crumot demonstrate that X8 

Aviation is a successor in interest to Renaissance Jet, Inc. under traditional notions of corporate 

law. 

Renaissance Jet, Inc. has not existed as a legal entity since 2009. Even if the FAA was to 

order Renaissance Jet, Inc. to pay a civil penalty, as a matter oflaw, that entity no longer exists, 

and X8 Aviation is neither a successor nor an assignee of Renaissance Jet, Inc. There is no 

privity between Renaissance Jet, Inc. and X8 Aviation. 

The alleged violations that are set forth in Paragraph 11 of the FAA's Order arise from 

the actions of a former chief pilot for Renaissance Jet, Inc. who was under the supervision of the 

prior owner, Barry Stroud. The former chief pilot was given a warning letter by the FAA as a 

result of making maintenance entries that were deemed to be inappropriate. The former chief 

pilot is, on information and belief, now an FAA Inspector. It is expected that this witness will 

testify that there was no factual basis to show that the aircraft in question was unairworthy at the 

time of the flight(s) in question. 

! 

This case is moot because the Renaissance Jet, Inc. no longer exists as a legal entity and 

any violations alleged by the FAA post date the dissolution of that organization. Its successor 

Renaissance Jet, LLC is also a dissolved company. X8 Aviation is not a successor in interest to 

Renaissance Jet, Inc. and its operations specifications, manuals, aircraft, operational control, and 

personnel bear no resemblance or relationship to Renaissance Jet, Inc. In addition, the 

Administrator has made no showing sufficient to pierce the corporate veil of X8 Aviation in this 

matter. Any order issuing a civil penalty against Renaissance Jet, Inc. is moot. 

Respectfully submitted. 

2 
Columbia, South Carolina 

December 4, 2014 

3 

Johnhodge@johnhodgelaw.com 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Respondent's Reply to Agency's RespoliSil to Motion to 

Dismiss has bren sent on this date via US Mail to: 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrntive Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department ofTI'll!lllportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Eil-3UI) 

Washlugton, DC 20590 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Zaclwy Bermlm. Esquire 

Attorney 

Federal. Aviation Administrntion 

Office of Regional Counsel 

1 Aviation Pi:ml 

Jamaica, NY 11434 l 

FAX: 71!!-995-5699 

Federal. Aviation Administration 

Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-4311 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 

Federnl Aviation Administrntion 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washlugton, DC 20591 

,f:,{£VVY1r- a_; )~~ 

Sharon A. Hodge 

Hodge & Associates, U.C 

Box 25553 (29224) 

136 Stonemark Lane, Suite 110 

Columbia, SC 29210