09/28/2011 14:44 FAX 2024935142 

39/26/2611 11:30 J2522710Q7 

FAA - OMS 

ANM' 

21001/005 

PAGE Pl/05 

FACSIMILE .MESSAGE 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMII^STRATIO N 

OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL 

ANM-7 

1601 LIND AVENUE S.W. 

RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 

The information contained in this facsimile message is legally privileged and confidential 

information and is intended only for the use of the individual named on this cover sheet. 

If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 

use. dissemination, distribution, or copy of this facsimile is strictly prohibited. If yon 

have received this facsiroile in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 

425-227-2007. 

DATE: 

T O : 

FAX NO.: 

PHONE NO. 

R E: 

September 28j 2011 

FAA, Hearing Docket 

Clerk; AGC-430 

(202) 493-5142 

F A A Docket No. 

CPIOALOOOS 

DMS No. FAA-2010-1081 

FAA Case No, 

20fl9AL70fllO3 

Lisa Gamacbe-Wortman 

NO. PAGES: 5 including cover 

FROM: Dana Stephenson 

FAX NO.: (425)227-100 7 

PHONE NO.: (425)227-216 4 

EMAIL: dana-Lstepliensonfafaa gov 

Complainant's Reply Brief 
09/28/2011 14:44 FAX 2024935142 

05/29/2011 11:30' 42522710Q7 

FAA - Otis 

ANM? 

0002/005 

PAGE 02/05 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

d 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

le 

19 

2C 

21 

22 

2i 

24 

25 

25 

27 

23 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

j3 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

4S 

•iB 

49 

50 

= 1 

52 

S3 

KYLEE.LOMAZOW 

FAA OFFICE OF F£GIONAL COUNSEL 

1601 LrND.AVE.SW 

RENTON, WASHINOToy98057 

TEL£PHO>fE: (425)227-1847 

FACSIMILE: (425)227-1007 

•/EiV^RTMENTOF 

rfiANSPORMTIOM 

•i::;i^L^o^cRAT[OMS 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC. 

ID the Matter of: 

LISA GAMACHE-WORTMAN 

FAA DOCKET CPIOALOOOS 

FAA Case No. 2OO9AL70O103 

DMSNo. FAA-2010-1O8] 

COMPLAINANT'S REPLY BRIEF 

procedural Summary 

On November 4, 2010, Respondent requested a hearing in response to the Complainaui's 

Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty. On November 23, 2010, the Agency isstied a Complaint in 

this case. Notice ofthis certified letter was left at Respondent's address on November 24, 2010, 

and as of December 29, 2010, she Had failed to claim the letter. In both letters, the Complainant 

spccificaljy informed the Respondent that she had 30 days ro iile an Answer. 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(a). 

Respondent failed to Answer the Complaint and never communicated any good cause for not 

answering the Complaint 

An Order Requiring Respondent to Answer Discovery .Requests or Risk Sanctions was 

served June 8, 2011 in response to Com.plainant's Motion to Deem Admitted Complainant's 

Requests for Admissions and Motion to Compel Discovery. The Order directed the Respondent to 

Complainant s Reply Brief 

In iheMwer of Lisa G3machc-\^''ort7n3n -

CF\OALOO005 

Pige 1 of4 

TEL: M25) 227-18A7; ?.\X: M2.S 22%\007 
09/29/2011 14:44 FAX 2024935142 FAA - DMS 

-"-J-l-J. J. 4. . J U 4^3^:^/100 ANM 7 

@003/005 

PAGE 33/05 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

15 

la 

13 

20 

2 "^ 

22 

23 

24 

2S 

25 

?.7 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

3j 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

•42 

62 

44 

4£ 

4f47 

4G 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

respond to Complainant's Initial Discovery Requests or risk sanctions therein listed, which included 

the sanction of default. Respondent failed to respond to this Order. 

On July 8, 2011, an Order was filed granting the Complainant's Second Motion for Decision 

on the grounds that Respondent had been given more than sufficient time and several opporttmities 

to respond to v;irious pleadings including the answer and discovery requests. The Order entered 

Judgment in the amount of $2,500 against the Respondent as requested in the Complainant's 

Complaint. The Order ftircher held in granting the Motion that Respondent uot only failed to 

respond to discovery, but she also failed to respond a second time to the Order Requiring 

Respondent to Answer, which for the second time in this proceeding, gave her a second opportunit}' 

to comply. 

On August 25, 2011, Respondent filed a handwritteCj one-page brief indicating that she bfid 

alerted YAA attorney Seott Morris that she has mental issues and cannot afford to pay any fines. She 

asked Ihc Administrative Law Judge to consider reversing the civil pena]t>' issued in the Order. 

ARGUMENT 

As indicated in the above summary, Respondent was given numerous chances to respond 

to the pleading?, but chose to simpJy ignons not only pleadings frcm the Complainant, but Orders 

from the Administrative Law Judge as well. Now that a judgment has been entered Respondent 

has fmally felt inclined to respond. However, Respondent already had her chance in the regard 

that she had ample opportunity to argue not only the merits of the case, but the sanction as well 

during the pendency of this proceeding. 

ComplaJnant's Reply Brief 

In The Mancr of LisaGamochs-Wortmnn -

CPlOALOnoOS 

Page 2 ftf 4 . 

KT1,E E. LOMAZOW. FAA ATTOttNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-1847: VAX: (425) 2J7-1007 
09/28/201 1 14:44 FAX 2024935142 

09/26/281 1 II : 3G 'i2522710[37 

FAA 

- QMS 

At^lM? 

@|004/005 

PAGE aj/Q S 

1 

2 

Tl 

4 

€ 

B 

9 

IQ 

11 

l2 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

13 

1? 

70 

-1 

22 

23 

24 

3S 

:s 

*7 

38 

29 

14 0 

3 1 

32 

33 

31 

^5 

3S 

37 

?^ 

35 

40 

41 

4.2 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

46 

49 

?0 

51 

32 

Furthermore, even if the Administrative Law Judge v,-as to entertain Respondent's 

motion, she failed to provide any proof to indicate a financial inability to pay other than stating in 

her brief that she caa-ioi afford any fjjies. This would not be enough to mitigate a sanction before 

judgment v.'as entered let alone after a judgment has already been entered. 

CoBclusTOn 

Tli£ FAA respectfully requests that this Court deny K.espondenl'5 Brief. Respondent was 

givei) plenty of opportunities to respond to discovery and was given two chances to ftle an 

Answer before judgment was entered: but instead chose not to do so. Respondent should not be 

given a chance to argue her case post-judgment considering she did not feel obligated to arguc 

her case pje-judgment. Therefore, her request to reverse the Civil Penalty should be denied. 

P^espectfiiUy submitted this 28^^ day of September 2011. 

Kyle E. Lomazow 

F.AA Attorney 

C-smpla-inan^'s P.«ply Brief 

In che Mancr of LisaGQiTincS&-Wonman -

CPIOAIOOOOS 

Page 3 of-1 

K.YT.F. E. LOKi.\zo\v, T.^A A.TTap^•t•,• 

TEL: (425) 2:7.|$47; FAX: (^251 227-100? 
09/28/2011 14:44 FAX 2024935142 FAA 

'^^ - i.o i ,:ai. ± '^I'-^J.'A l\ tl6? 

- DM S 

3 

4 

S 

7 

3 

9 

10 

11 

12 

-. % 

14 

15 

i s 

17 

le 

19 

20 

2:. 

22 

33 

as 

27 

23 

75 

30 

31 

32 

53 

34 

3 = 

36 

37 

39 

?9 

40 

•11 

42 

43 

44 

45 

US 

47 

49 

4? 

50 

SI 

5i 

53 

ANM 7 

21005/005 

PAQE (35/ 05 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

1 hereby certify that the foregoing Complainant's Reply Brief ha.s been5e^^•ed vja facsimile and 

FedEx overnight delivery this date, to the folJowinfp 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Ann; Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wnght Buildijig - Suiic 2W] 000 

FAX: (202)493-5020 

I hereby ctrrify that the foregoing Complainant's Reply Brief has been served via First Class and 

Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested this date, to the follov^ing: 

Lisa Gamacbe-Worlman 

P.O. Box 12793 

01>Tnpia,Wy\ 985C8-2793 

TEL: (360) 866-0892 

Dated this 2Sth day of December, 2011. 

.;,^^.sj. T4(Xltf^^ 

Dana Stephenson 

Office of Regional Counsel (.''iNM-T) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 LindAvc. SW 

Reiiion,WA 98057 

(425) 227-2! 64 

Complainant's Reply Brief 

Iri the Mattea- of Lisa Camacho-Womnan -

C.P1OALO0005 

Page d of4 

KVLE £. LOMAZOW, FAA ATTOB.HEY 

TEL: (4251 -227-1 Ul \ FAX; (425) 227- ] 007