s t-^ ^



### -EPAHMNTO F

. . rj;'t'^PO[?J^^'^lptf.§ . DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATION , "• " r . •- - . ^ L-..;;J<hTOPbRATl(}^DERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATION . ." ' - ^ Z 1 '^ J ^2 . OFFIC E O F HEARING S 201 0 SE P I U P 1 : U 8 WASHINGTON , D.C . J * ^ 9 201 0

I n th e Matte r

o f Empire Airway s * , \, ; w r . i: : i 2009EA11003 9 CP10EA000 2 Honorabl e Isaa c D . Benki n 

# Sim-01 ^ I

AGENCY' S RESPONS E T O RESPONDENT' S NUN C PR O TUN C APPLICATIO N FO RA N AWAR D O F ATTORNE Y FEE S AN D OTHE REXPENSE S PURSUAN T T O TH E EQUAL

ACCES S T O JUSTIC E AC T COME S NOW th e Agency , b y an d throug h it s designate d representative , th e Regiona l Counse l fo

r th e Eastern Regio n an d hi s duly designate d agents , an d respond s t o Respondent' s Nun c Pr o Tun c Applicatio n Fo r An Award o f

Attorne y Fee s an d othe r Expense s Pursuan t

t o th e Equal Acces s t o Justic e Ac t

(hereinafte

r "th e Application") . Th e Agenc y submit s that th e Applicatio n mus t b e dismissed o n th e ground s tha t i t i s untimely . I n addition . Empir e Airway s ("Applicant" ) i s ineligible for a n awar d becaus e it

ha s no t "prevailed " i

n th e sens e require d b y Equal Acces s t o Justic e Ac t (EAJA) . I n addition . Empir e Airway s ha s faile d t o submit

th e financial documentatio n require d b y EAJA . PROCEDURA L HISTOR Y 1 . O n Februar

y 16 , 2010 , th e Agenc y filed it s Complain t in thi s matter . 2 . O n Marc h 24 , 2010 , aNotic e o f Appearanc e o n behal f

o f Applicant

was filed b y Charle s J . Casolaro , Esq . (hereinafte

r Mr . Casolaro) . 3 . A t n o tim e in thi s proceedin g di d Mr . Casolar o ever withdra w a s counsel .4 . O n Jun e 1 , 2010 , a"Notic e o f Appearanc e and Substitutio n o f Counsel, " purportedl y o n behal f o f Applicant , wa s filed by Gregor y S . Winton , Esq . (hereinafte r "Mr . Winton") . There wa s n o indicatio n tha t

thi s substitutio n was consente d t o b y either Applicant

o r Mr . Casolaro . Th e certificat e o f servic e fo r thi s notic e indicate d that

i t was not serve d o n either

Applican t itself o r Mr . Casolaro . 5 . O n Jun e 22 , 2010 , Mr . Winto n filed aMotio n for Judgmen t

o n th e Pleadings , purportedl y on behal f o f Applicant . 6 . O n Jun e 21 , 2010 , th e Agenc y filed Complaint' s Motio n T o Withdra w Complain t Without Prejudice , wherei n th e Agenc y concede d tha t i t had initiate d th e cas e agains t th e wron g corporat e entity , an d requeste d tha t i t b e permitte d t o withdraw th e Complain t withou t prejudic e for

purpose s o f

initiatin g th e cas e agains t

th e correc t

corporat e entity . 7 . O n Jun e 23 , 2010 , Administrativ e Law Judge' s Orde r Dismissin g Proceedin g And Canceling Hearin g (hereinafte

r "th e Dismissa

l Order" ) wa s issued , wherei n th e Administrativ e Law Judg e i n thi s proceedin g (AU) , in respons e t o th e motio n tha t was filed b y th e Agenc y o n Jun e 21 , 2010 , state d "Al l tha t

I ca n d o no w i s t o follo w th e dictat e o f §13.21 5 o f

th e Procedura l Rules , 1 4 C.F.R . §13.21 5 an d dismis s thi s cas e with prejudice. " I n light o f thi s dismissal , o n Jun e 23 , 2010 , th e AL J als o issue d a n Orde r Dismissin g Motio n for

Judgmen t

o n th e Pleading s "fo r

wan t o f jurisdiction. " Th e certificat e o f servic e for

thes e Order s indicate d tha t the y wer e serve d o n Mr . Casolaro , bu t no t o n Mr . Wmton . Ther e wa s n o appea l t o th e Dismissa l Order .8 . O n Augus t 6 , 2010 , Mr . Winto

n filed the instan

t EAJ A application , purportedl

y o n behal f o f Applicant. I

n th e Application , i

t wa s claime

dtha t Mr . Wmto

n di dnot receiv e th e Dismissa l Orde r unti l Jul y 26,2010 . 9 . Th e sol e purported financial disclosur e wit h the EAJ A applicatio

n wa s astatemen

t b y Mr . Wmto n tha t "In accordanc e wit

h 1 4 C.F.R . § 14.03(b)(5) , Applican t i s acorporatio n wit

h a ne t wort h o f no t mor e tha n $ 7 millio

n an dno t mor e tha n 500 employee s a

t th e tim e th e adversar y adjudication wa s initiated. " Ther e wa s n o accompanying net wort h exhibit . ARGUMEN

T (a ) TH E APPLICATIO

N WA S FILE D I N A N UNTIMEL

Y MANNE

RAN D THEREFOR

E MUS T B E DISMISSED . Unde r 1 4 C.F.R . §14.20 , a

n applicatio n ma

y b e filed wheneve

r th e applican

t ha s prevaile

d i n th e proceeding , but

i n no cas e late

r tha n 3 0 day s afte

r th e FA A Decisionmaker' s final dispositio n of

th e proceeding. " Unde

r 1 4 C.F.R . §14.20(c ) (3) , "fina l disposition, " fo

r purpose s o f thi s proceeding , mean s "Th e date on whic h a n unappeale ddecision become s administrativel y final." Unde

r 1 4 C.F.R . §14.233(a) , apart y ha s 1 0 day s afte

r servic e o f av^itte n initia

l decisio n t o file a n appeal . In thi s case , th e Dismissa l Orde r wa s issuedo n Jun e 23 , 2010 , an dsince th e decision wa s no t

appealed , th e final dispositio n of th e cas e wa s 1 0 day s later , or on Tuesday , Jul

y 6 , 2010. ' Thus , Applican

t wa s require dt o submi

t th e EAJ A applicatio n 3 0 day s later , or b y Augus t 5 , 2010 . Applican

t did no t submi t th e application until Augus t 6 , 2010 . Therefore , i

t wa s untimely .

^ Th e 10 * da

y afte r Jun e 2 3 wa s Jul

y 3 , whic h fel l o n aSaturday . Jul

y 4 * fel l on Sunda y an d Jul y 5 * wa s aFedera

l holiday . Thus , th e actua

l deadlin e fo r filing a n appea l wa s Tuesday , Jul

y 6 , 2010 . 3Givin g arespondent

th e righ t t o file a n EAJ A applicatio n is , i

n effect, awaive

r of sovereign immunit

y tha t "mus t b e strictly construe di

n favo r of th e sovereign " an

d"no t enlarged beyon d wha t th e statute requires. " Escoba r v . U.S . I.N.S. , 93 5 F.2d 65 0 (4 * Cir . 1991) . I n ligh t of thi s principle , th e court s hav e consistentl y hel dtha t th e EAJA' s 30-da

y tim e limi t i s jurisdictiona

l an d ma y no t b e waived . MonarkBoar

Co . v . NLRB , 70 8 F.2 d132 2 (8 * Cir . 1983) . Accordingly , th e Nationa

l Transportatio n Safet

y Boar ddismisse da n EAJ A application tha

t wa s filed on e da y pas t th e 30-da y deadline . Steve

n D . Hollowa

y v . Administrator , Federa l Aviation Administration , Docke t

137-EAJA-SE- l 1543 . Similar, th e EAJ A applicatio n i

n thi s case , although filed onl

y da y late , shouldb e dismissed . I n th e Application , it

i s claime dtha t th e applicatio n shoul db e accepte da s timel y becaus e "...b y no faul

t o f Respondent

or it s counsel , Mr . Winton' s nam e wa s neve

r addedt o th e judge' s servic e list . Accordingly , thi s applicatio n i s timel y mad e a s i f th e la w judge' s Orde

r wa s serve d upo n Mr . Winton o n Jul

y 26 , 2010 , whe

n he first receivedacop y vi afacsimil e an demail. " Whil

e th e ALJ , however , ma

y no t hav e ha dth e Dismissa

l Orde r servedon Mr . Winton on Jun e 23 , 2010 , h e did hav e th e Dismissa l Orde r servedon Applicant' s attorne y o f recor da t th e time , Mr . Casolaro. ^ Unde r 1 4 CF R13.204(b) , "A

n attorney or

representativ e who represent s apart y ma y file a notic e of appearanc e i

n th e action.. . an

dshal l serv e acopy o f

th e notic e of

appearanc e o

n eac h party,..before participatin g i n an y proceedin g governe db

y thi s subpart. " Mr . Winton' s "Notic e of Appearanc e an

d Substitutio n of

Counsel " filed on June 1 , 201 0 didno t constitut e avali d notic e

^ A s indicated above , Mr . Casolar o initiall y filed anotic e o f

appearanc e i

n Februar y 201 0 an d neve r withdrew hi s appearance . 4o f

appearanc e becaus e i

t wa s no t servedo n eithe

r Applican t itsel f o r it s counse

l o f recor d a t th e time , Mr . Casolaro , an

d thu s wa s not

"serve do n eac

h party " a s required . Thus , Mr . Casolar o remained th e legitimat

e counsel o f

recor dfo r Applican t until th e tim

e th e Dismissa

l Orde r wa s issued . Mr . Casolar

o wa s serve dwit

h th e Dismissa

l Orde r i n atimel y manner , an

dther e i s n o goo d caus e fo

r th e dela y i n submitting th e EAJ

A application . Th e Agenc y ma y hav e been mistaken i n responding t o motion s purportedly filed b y Mr . Winton an

dth e AL J ma y have bee n mistaken i n rulin g o n thes e motions , but

tha t doe s no t negat e th e fac t tha t Mr . Casolar

o properl y filed anotic e o f

appearanc e an

d neve r withdrew it ; tha

t th e notic e o f

appearanc e tha

t wa s purportedly filed b

y Mr . Winto n wa s no t

servedon Applican

t o r it s counsel an

dwa s therefor

e improper ; an

d tha t th e AL J continue dt o apparentl

y regar dMr . Casolar

o a s th e representativ e o f Applican t becaus e th e AL

J continue dt o serv e Mr . Casolar o wit h al l hi s papers , includin

g th e Dismissa l Order . Al

l thes e fact s suppor

t th e conclusion tha

t Mr . Casolar

o remaine d th e representativ e o f

Applicant , an

d tha t Applican t wa s thu s properly servedwit h th e dismissa

l orde r o f June 23 , 201 0 an

d submission of

th e EAJ A applicatio n 4 1 day s later

wa s untimely . (b ) APPLICAN

T HA S NO T PREVAILE D I N THI S PROCEEDIN G I N TH E SENS E REQUIRE

D B Y EAJA . Unde r 1 4 C.F.R . §14.20 , a

n applicatio n ma

y b e filedonl

y whe n th e applican

t ha s "prevailed " i

n th e proceeding . I

n th e Application , i

t i s correctly state dtha

t th e U.S . Cour

t of Appeal s fo

r th e Distric t

o f Columbi aCircuit , basedupo n th e Suprem e Cour t decisio n i n Buckhanno n Boar d an d Car e Home , Inc . v . Wes t Virgini aDepartmen t

o f Healt h an dHuma

n Resources , 53 2 U.S . 59 8 (2001) , ha s distilledathree-par t fo r determining whethe

r a n EAJ Aapplican

t ha s prevailed : (1 ) ther

e must b e acourt-ordere dchang e i n th e lega l relationshi

p o f th e parties ; (2 ) th e judgment mus t b e i n favo r of th e part y seeking fees ; an

d(3 ) th e judicia

l pronouncemen

t mus t b e accompaniedb

y judicia l relief Turne r an dCoona

n v . N.T.S.B. , 60 8 F . 3 d 12 ; 201 0 U.S . App . LEXI S 1164 8 (D.C . Cir . 2010) . Wha t Applican t doe s no t mention , however , i s tha

t th e Cour t i n Turne r an dCoonan , i

n finding tha

t th e three-pron g tes t

ha dno t bee n met , emphasizedth e fac

t tha t i t wa s th e FA

A tha t unilaterall y acte d t o en

d th e adversaria

l relationshi

p between th e parties , leaving the mwher e the y wer e befor e th e complain

t wa s filed, an

dtha t th e dismissa

l o f th e case s wa s "jus t

a n administrative housekeeping measure , no t afor mo f relief , becaus e th e FA

A didno t needth e ALJ' s permissio

n t o withdra w acomplaint. " Id . A s such , th e judgmen t wa s no t i n favo r o f th e part y seekin g th e fee s (i.e. . Applicant) , bu t

wa s merel

y a n officia l stam p o f approva l on th e Agency' s withdrawa l o f th e case . An

d th e ALJ , i

n issuing th e Dismissa

l Order , didno t

grant an y relief t o Complainan

t but wa s merel y carrying ou t

wha t th e Agenc

y sought : adismissa

l o f th e case. ^ Unde r 1 4 C.F.R . §13.215 , "A

t an y tim e befor e or during ahearing , a

n agenc y attorne y ma y withdra w acomplain

t o r apart y ma y withdra w areques t

fo r ahearing without

th e consen

t of th e administrative la

w judge . I f

a n agency attorney withdraw s th e complain t o r apart y withdraw s the reques t fo r ahearing an

d th e answer , th e administrativ e la w judg e shal

l dismis s th e proceeding s unde r thi s subpar

t wit h prejudice. " Through it s motion on Jun e 21 , 2010 , th e Agenc y effectivel y exercised it s discretio n - no t requiring judicia

l approva l - t o withdra

w th e Complaint . By tha

t

' Th e fac t tha t th e Agency moved t o withdra w th e cas e without

prejudic e an

dth e AL J dismisse d th e cas e wit

h prejudic e i s immaterial . A s indicatedi n th e Agency' s motion , i

t sough t t o withdra w th e complain

t without prejudic e onl

y fo r purpose s o f

initiating actio n agains t

adifferen t corporat eactio n alone , th e Agenc y effectivel

y endedit s adversaria

l relationshi

p wit h th e Applicant. . A s indicated by th e AL

J i n th e Dismissa

l Order , he ha

dn o choic e a

t tha t poin t but t o dismis s th e case . Thus , th e ALJ' s dismissa

l of thi s cas e wa s jus t

a n "administrativ e housekeeping measure, " as i n Turne r an d Coonan , an

d should no t

b e deeme dt o mea n tha t Applican t ha s "prevailed " i

n thi s cas e unde r EAJA . (c ) APPLICAN

T HA S FAILE

D T O SUBMI

T TH E REQUIRE

D FINANCL\

L DOCUMENTATION Unde r 1 4 C.F.R . §14.11(a) , "Eac h applican t except aqualifie dtax-exemp t

organization or cooperativ e associatio n mus t provide wit

h it s application adetaile dexhibi t showin g th e ne t wort h o f th e applican

t an d an y affiliate s whe

n th e proceedin g wa s initiated. " Whil e Mr . Winto

n ha s signed astatemen

t attestin g tha

t Applican t has ane t wort h o f les s tha n $ 7 million , ther

e i s n o "detaile d exhibit " demonstratin g a s such , a s require db y th e EAJ

A regulations . Thus , th e Application i s defective an

d shouldb e dismissedon tha t basi s alone . CONCLUSION Th e Application mus t

b e dismisse

dbecaus e i

t i s untimely ; becaus e Applican t has no t

entity . Wit

h respec t t o Applican

t itself , th e ALJ' s Dismissa

l Orde r wa s n o differen

t fi-omwha t th e Agency sought : awithdrawa l of th e complain

t an ddismissa l of th e case . 7prevailed ; an d becaus e it

doe s no t includ e require dfinancial documentation .

Respectfull y submitted , Alfi-e d R . Johnson , Jr . Regiona l Counse l By : m/r^'^^/^'^' ^ Date : ?/^// ^ ZacharyM.Be ' ' Attorne y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio

n 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica, NY 1143 4 Telephone : 71 8 553-325 8 Facsimile : 71 8 995-569 9CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y that o n thi s da

y copie s o f

th e foregoin g Agency' s AGENCY' S RESPONS E T O RESPONDENT' S NUNC PR O TUN C APPLICATIO N FO RA N AWARD O F ATTORNE Y FEESAN D OTHE REXPENSE S PURSUAN T T O TH E EQUA L ACCES S T O JUSTIC E AC T wer e sen t vi afirst clas s mai l an d vi afacsimil e t o eac h o f th e following : Honorabl e Isaa c D . Benki n OflSc e o f Hearings , M-2 0 Roo m541 1 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 40 0 Sevent

h Street , S.W . Washington , D.C . 2059 0 Telefax : (202)366-753 6 Gregor y S . Winton , Esq . Th e Aviatio n La w Fir

m On e Researc h Court , Suit e 45 0 Rockville , M D 2085 0 Telefax : (301)294-252 5 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-4 0 (vi afirst

clas s mail only ) Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Ro m924 A Washington , D.C . 2059 1

Date : SE P - 1 201 0 

### ^rrC , L Hook s Paralega l Specialis t OfiBc e o f Regiona l Counse l 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4