4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

- I 

< o 

E o 

5 uj ^ t S _ 

S (9 3: 3 O) s 

"•i5!"'2S 21 

5 E I 3 (r 2 

o — * 

C S 24 

u. >-

O 

25 

26 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRAT 

FEDERAL AVIATION AniVfTlVTSTRUTThTy 

AIRPORT/ENVn^DNMENTAL 

LAW, AGC-600 WASHINGTON, DC 

L 

RDM, LLC, 

Complainant, 

TED STEVENS ANCHORAGE 

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, 

Respondent. 

••. 1 — 1 

Docket No. 16-09-14; 

MOTION TO STRIKE UNTIMELY "AMENDMENT*' TO COMPLAINT 

AND, m THE ALTERNATIVE, 

ANSWER TO **AMENDMENT*' 

MOTION TO STRIKE UNTIMELY "AMENDMENT" TO COMPLAINT 

The State of Alaska, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, 

Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport ("ANC") by and through the office of the 

Attorney General of the State of Alaska, hereby moves that the Director strike as 

untimely RDM's "Amendment to 'RDM' complaint against Ted Stevens Anchorage 

International Airport" filed by mail April 14, 2010 ("Amendment"). The 

"Amendment" was filed more than three months after the last pleading in this matter, as 

specified under 14 C.F.R. §16.23, was due. There was no motion for leave to file it or 

for its acceptance. It states no reason for its tardy filing or basis for waiver of the 

Part 16 Rules of Practice to allow for its consideration. 

The proffered "Amendment" presents no allegations, facts, evidence or 

law that were unavailable at the time earlier pleadings were due and filed. Rather, 

Motion to Strike "Amendment" to Complaint and, in the Alternative, Answer to "Amendment" Page 1 of 6 

RDM, LLC V. ANC Docket No. 16-09-14 
< a 

Hi N 

5 lu , t S _ 

S C9 Z 3 ^ S 2 ^ 0 OT » 2 

11. Ul 

uj r 

s< 

I- UJ 

EC X 

0. u. 

UJ o 

D m 

Z r < •« 

< UJ ^ d> 

CC 3 M <D 

m z < CM 

111 - J -.^ 

< I UJ 2 . 

oc p O .. 

O c < U l 

X 3 OC Z 

O o o o 

Z u. X X 

< _• o a 5 z 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

y 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

• 

RDM itself states that the "Amendment" constitutes "additional relevant comments for 

consideration." See "Amendment" at p. 2. It is nothing more than late advocacy for 

claims that RDM has already articulated in some 70 single-spaced pages of Complaint, 

Reply, and Answer to Motion to Dismiss. 

Although two days before RDM filed its untimely "Amendment," the 

Director had extended the time for issuance of the Director's determination from 

May 11, 2010, to July 30, 2010, that extension was deemed necessary by the Director 

without the burden of dealing with another ten single-spaced pages of untimely 

argument. The Director should strike the "Amendment" as untimely and proceed to 

render a decision based upon the original series of pleadings filed by January 11, 2010. 

In the alternative, should the Director choose not to strike the 

"Amendment," ANC presents the following: 

ANSWER TO *'AMENDMENT." 

RDM's "Amendment" presents no new allegations of violadon of federal 

law or Sponsor Grant Assurances, no new facts or supporting evidence for allegations 

previously asserted, no new legal arguments supporting those previous allegations. As 

noted above, RDM itself describes the "Amendment" as merely "additional relevant 

comments." There being nothing new to admit, deny or state a lack of knowledge 

about, ANC will simply comment in answer to RDM's additional comments. 

Although the additional comments are a challenge to grasp, the core 

message appears to be an assertion that in addition to causing RDM alleged harm. 

Motion to Strike "Amendment" to Complaint and, in the Alternative, Answer to "Amendment" Page 2 of 6 

RDM. LLC V. ANC Docket No. 16-09-14 
< 

UJ 

-J > 

u . UJ 

UJ C 

S < 

I - UJ 

OC X 

a. u. 

UJ o 

u. 

O 

o 

o 

CM 

_ — " > ^ 

X 3 <» S o « <»> ° 

Z ' < u> 

< UJ ^ ^ 

E 3 U> to 

m z < CM 

< X UJ 2 1 

ff f O .. 

0 E < UJ 1 5 oc z 

o o o o 

Z It X X 

< . O Q. S z 

.- < 

CO 

o 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

23 

24 

25 

26 

• 

ANC's leasing policy was not good aviation policy, and was hurtfiil to the public 

interest and Alaska aviation. ANC strongly disagrees with that notion. 

First, as exhaustively outlined in previous filings, ANC treated AGLAD 

Postmark, LLC ("AGLAD")—^ANC's direct tenant in which RDM was an investor— 

fairly, differing fi"om the treatment of previous lessee's based only on validly 

distinguishing circumstances. 

Second, had ANC provided AGLAD the leniencies it sought, and that 

were truly unprecedented under its circumstances, AGLAD likely would have suffered 

an even more colossal collapse. Had AGLAD managed to begin major excavation 

before it surely would have imploded during the continuing economic slide of 2009, the 

financial damage would have been compounded by environmental damage and possibly 

a tremendous debt load. In arguing that its project faced a "perfect storm" of turbulent 

economic conditions, RDM seems to assume, without basis, that ANC somehow had an 

obligation to bail AGLAD out of that situation. 

As described in the initial narrative of ANC's original Answer, the project 

AGLAD envisioned proved simply too ambitious for AGLAD to accomplish, and the 

economic downturn certainly did not help. Whether AGLAD's project was too costly 

from the start, or whether there was simply insufficient air cargo demand to support 

those costs, may never be fiilly clear. But AGLAD's project failed because its 

economics proved to be unsound and its developer incapable of sustaining it, not 

because of ANC's requirements or actions. ANC's actions were sound, making the 

Motion to Strike "Amendment" to Complaint and, in the Alternative, Answer to "Amendment" Page 3 of 6 

RDM, LLC V. ANC Docket No. 16-09-14 
< 

cc 

Ul 

-J > 

UL UJ 

2^ 

UJ g 

S < 

K UJ 

a X 

< •-

0. u. 

UJ o 

o UJ 

o 

LL 

U. 

O 

Z . < in 

< UJ 2 (i, OC 2 (A S 

go Z 4 CM 

UJ _ j ^^ 

UJ > 5 P 

< T UJ e 

£ K o •. 

O K < UJ 

X 3 cc Z " o o o 

Z II. X X 

< . y Q. 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

• • 

undeveloped airport land available again for development by a tenant with a plan better 

matched to the marketplace and the developer's demonstrated financial capacity. 

The question in this matter, however, is not whether ANC's leasing policy 

was ultimately perfect, nor whether different decisions, in hindsight, might have better 

promoted aviation in Alaska as RDM speculates. The only question is whether ANC's 

acts or omissions as to AGLAD violated federal law or Grant Assurances in such a way 

as to have harmed AGLAD, much less directly and substantially affected RDM. 

Despite RDM's effort to compare AGLAD's treatment to that of three very different 

tenants—^FedEx, UPS and Alaska CargoPort—under very different circumstances, and 

despite all the conclusory assertions that RDM was treated unfairly, RDM's original 

filings failed to demonstrate any violation of federal law or Grant Assurances. The 

"Amendment" adds nothing new. In particular, RDM points to no legal obligation, 

much less one subject to Part 16 review, that required ANC to save AGLAD from its 

own financial inability to perform the terms to which it agreed, whether due to 

AGLAD's own failures or due to global economic conditions. 

Finally, in the "Amendment" RDM asks the FAA for "[t]he shuttering of 

fiirther public funding to TSAIA until proper and corrective actions are rendered . . . ." 

See "Amendment" at 6. RDM refers to "[o]ur claims of torts." Id at 7. RDM asks the 

FAA to define "corrective action," inducing ANC to make such correction by restricting 

ANC's access to federal fiinding. Id. Repeating the reference to "harms and torts," 

RDM wraps itself in the public interest while asking the FAA to "demand, induce, and 

Motion to Strike "Amendment" to Complaint and, in the Alternative, Answer to "Amendment" Page 4 of 6 

RDM. LLC V. ANC Docket No. 16-09-14 
< 

(E 

UJ 

- J > 

M UJ 

Ul P 

2 < 

K UJ 

OC X 

<C I -

0 , U. 

Ill O 

O UJ 

u 

a o 

CM 

x5S g 

o w » = 

Z ,.r < •" 

(E 3 (A (O 

QQ Z < OJ 

UJ I J .-^ 

" l > < 1 ^ 

< T UJ £ 

oc K O .. 

O (C < Ul 

X 3 X Z o o o o 

z u: X X 

< ^ (J Q. S z 

T - < 

CO o 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

23 

24 

25 

26 

• 

assess such corrective actions as necessary of the TSAIA . . . that the process of the 

FAA under PART-16 will make us whole .... " 

What RDM really wants is for the FAA to force ANC to pay 

compensation to RDM under penalty of losing federal grant funding. Failing that, RDM 

wants the FAA to rule that ANC was non-compliant with federal law so RDM can try to 

use that ruling in another forum to demand compensation from ANC under some tort 

theory. Part 16 is a process for review to ensure ongoing compliance with federal law 

and Grant Assurances, not to adjudicate alleged past wrongs or to aid parties seeking 

compensation. The "Amendment" makes clear that this entire matter is a gross abuse of 

Part 16 and that the Complaint should be summarily dismissed on that basis alone. 

CONCLUSION 

ANC urges the Director to strike the "Amendment" as untimely, but 

failing that, to recognize RDM's repeated invocation of public policy and the interest of 

aviation in Alaska as self-serving attempts to gain the sympathies of the Director in its 

campaign to recover its investment losses from airport revenues. ANC urges the 

Director to see this abuse of Part 16 for what it is, and either to dismiss the Complaint 

with prejudice, or determine it to be without merit on all counts. 

DATED this 27* day of April, 2010 at Anchorage, Alaska. 

DANIEL S. SULLIVAN 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By: <^f^^(/ . /$tu^^jt^ 

iohn L. Steiner 

' Senior Assistant Attorney General 

ABA No. 8711108 

Motion to Strike "Amendment" to Complaint and, in the Alternative, Answer to "Amendment" Page 5 of 6 

RDM, LLC V. ANC Docket No. 16-09-14 
< 

oc 

UJ 

- I > 

U. UJ 

UJ P 

s< 

I - UJ 

a u. 

UJ o 

o o 

CM 

UJ r : 

;8 t in 

^ < in 

2 to <o 

Z < CM 

UJ 

5 

X 

1-

c 

o 

u. 

o 

a .. 

< UJ X z 0 o 

1 X 

o a 

z 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

• • 

Certificate Of Service 

I hereby certify that on April 27, 2010,1 have this day served the foregoing MOTION 

TO STRIKE UNTIMELY "AMENDMENT" TO COMPLAINT, AND, IN THE 

ALTERNATIVE, ANSWER TO "AMENDMENT", and the (proposed) ORDER 

STRIKING "AMENDMENT" TO COMPLAINT" on the following persons at the 

following addresses: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attn.: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-610 

Room 925 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Shaun Debenham 

Managing Members of RDM, LLC 

2960 C Street, Suite 202 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

via: 

D hand delivery 

D faxed 

H mailed 

^UW ^ <?V. /^/Ci^^J^r.^ 

JoluiiL. Steiner 

Senllor Assistant Attorney General 

Attorney General's Office 

Attorneys for Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport 

Motion to Strike "Amendment" to Complaint and, in the Alternative, Answer to "Amendment" Page 6 of 6 

RDM. LLC V. ANC Docket No. 16-09-14 
< 

oc 

UJ 

- I > 

U. UJ 

Ul P 

S < 

t - Ul 

cc X 

UJ o 

O UJ 

o 

o 

Jil 5 

O OT » ? 

Z ' < in 

Z X< 3u M ^ . S 

m z < CM 

< ^ UJ S . 

O £ < UJ X 5 a z 

o o o o 

Z LL X X 

< . O Q. S z 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

2! 

?"> 

23 

24 

25 

• 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

RDM, LLC, 

Complainant, 

TED STEVENS ANCHORAGE 

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, 

Respondent. 

Docket No. 16-09-14 

ORDER STRIKING "AMENDMENT" TO COMPLAINT 

The Director having reviewed the State of Alaska, Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities, Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport's 

MOTION TO STRIKE "AMENDMENT" TO COMPLAINT, and any Opposition, 

Rebuttal, and all other documents pertaining thereto, and having satisfied himself that 

the relief requested in the motion is warranted, hereby grants the motion, and strikes 

RDM's Amendment to Complaint dated April 14, 2010, for the reasons stated in the 

above-referenced motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this day of 20 

Randall Fiertz 

Director, Airport Compliance and Field Operations 

Division 

Order Striking "Amendment " To Complaint 

RDM. LLC V. AN C 

Page 1 of 1 

Docket No. 16-09-14