## 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: JohnAdams 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 StatesAdministrative Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. DepartmentofTransportation 1200 NewJerseyAvenue, S.E. (EI1-310) December 18,2014

Washington, 

### DC 20590 

# r AA, 2.0 

### 13**~** 

### I0 

## 1

# r 

# RECEIVED JAN 0 

## 5 2015 

## HEARING DOCf"<ET

Re: In Re:

# Rena~ssancejetInc., Docket No.

# FAA-20~~ Case No. 2012EA290030 Dearjudge Sullivan: · Pleasefind enclosedthe Respondent's Reply toAgency's Response to Motion to Dismiss the aforementioned case on grounds ofmootness. By copy of

### this letterand enclosures, we are also servingcounsel for theAdministratorwith themotion. Please let me know if

### youhave any questions. Thankyou very much for 

### yourconsideration.



### cc: Zachary Berman, Esquire EnclosuresU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATIONADMINISTRATION 

## JAN 05 2015 

## HEARING DOCKET
In the Matter ofRenaiss: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 behalfofRenaissance Jet, Inc., counsel for the Respondent would showthe Honorable Court the following: The FAA has characterized the status ofRenaissance 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 morethan solely a name change. The facts giving rise to the alleged violations arose out ofoperational 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 ofthis change in ownership. The name ofthe certificate holder remained inthe 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 existwithout 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 ofthe air carrier are different, there are different managers, and the operational control is with a different entity. Unlike M&MHelicopters, X8 Aviation is notjust a name change ofa 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 ofthe 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 namechange 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 differenttypes ofaircraft. 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 ofcorporate law. Renaissance Jet, Inc. has not existed as a legal entity since 2009. Even iftheFAA 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 ofthe FAA's Order arise from the actions ofa former chiefpilot for Renaissance Jet, Inc. who was under the supervision ofthe prior owner, Barry Stroud. The former chiefpilot 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 ofthe 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 ofX8 Aviation in this matter. Any orderissuing a civil penalty against Renaissance Jet, Inc. is moot. Respectfully submitted.

2Columbia, South Carolina December4, 2014

3 Johnhodge@johnhodgelaw.com

### CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE I herebycertifythattheforegoing Respondent's Reply

### toAgency's RespoliSilto Motion 

### to Dismisshas bren sent on this 

### datevia US Mail to:
JudgeJ.E. Sullivan U.S. AdministrntiveLaw Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. DepartmentofTI'll!lllportation 1200New 

### Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Eil-3UI) Washlugton,DC20590 FAX: 

### 202-366-7536
Zaclwy

### Bermlm. Esquire Attorney Federal.AviationAdministrntion Office ofRegional Counsel 1AviationPi:ml Jamaica, NY 11434 l FAX: 

### 71!!-995-5699

Federal.Aviation Administration Hearing

### DocketClerk,AGC-4311 WilburWrightBuilding-

### Suite2W1000 Federnl AviationAdministrntion 800 

### IndependenceAvenue, S.W. Washlugton, DC 20591



## ,f:,{£VVY1r- 

# a_;**)~~** SharonA. Hodge Hodge & 

### Associates, U.C Box 25553 (29224) 136 StonemarkLane, Suite 

### 110 Columbia, SC 29210