4

5 6 7 8 9 1 0 I I 12 1 3 14 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9

- I < o E o 5 u j ^ t S _ S ( 9 3 : 3 O ) s "•i5!"'2 S 2 1

5 E I 3 (

r 2

o —* C S 2 4 u . > - O 2 5

2 6 UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O F TRA T FEDERA L AVIATIO N AniVfTlVTSTRUTThT y AIRPORT/ENVn^DNMENTA L LAW , AGC-60 0 WASHINGTON , D C 

### L RDM , LLC , Complainant ,
TE D STEVEN S ANCHORAG E INTERNATIONA L AIRPORT ,

Respondent . ••. 1

— 1 Docke t No . 16-09-14 ; MOTIO N T O STRIK E UNTIMEL Y "AMENDMENT* ' T O COMPLAIN T AND , mTH

E ALTERNATIVE, ANSWE RT O **AMENDMENT* ' MOTIO N T O STRIK E UNTIMEL Y "AMENDMENT " T O COMPLAIN T

Th e Stat e o f

Alaska , Departmen t

o f Transportatio n an dPubli c Facilities , Te dSteven s Anchorag e Internationa l Airpor t ("ANC" ) b y an dthroug h th e offic e o f th e Attorne y Genera l o f

th e Stat e o f

Alaska , hereb y move s tha t th e Directo r

strik e a s untimel y RDM' s "Amendmen t t o 'RDM ' complain t

agains t Te dSteven s Anchorag e Internationa l Airport " filedb y mai l Apri l 14 , 201 0 ("Amendment") . Th e "Amendment " wa s filedmor e tha n thre e month s after th e las t pleadin g i n thi s matter , a s specifie dunde r

1 4 C.F.R . §16.23 , wa s due . Ther e wa s n o motio n fo r leav e t o file it

o r for it s acceptance . I t

state s n o reaso n fo

r it s tard y filing o r

basi s fo r waive r o f th e Par t 1 6 Rule s o f

Practic e t o allo w for

it s consideration . Th e proffere d"Amendment " present s n o allegations , facts , evidenc e o r la w tha t wer e unavailabl e at

th e tim e earlie r

pleading s wer e du e an dfiled. Rather , Motio n t o Strik e "Amendment " t o Complain t and , in th e Alternative , Answe r t o "Amendment " Pag e 1 o f 6 RDM , LL C V

. AN C Docke t No . 16-09-1 4< a H i N 5 l u , t S _ S C 9 Z 3 ^ S 2 ^ 0 OT » 2 11 . U l u j r s < I - U J E C X 0 . u . U J o D m Z r< • « < U J ^

d > C C 3 M < D mz < C

M 11 1 - J -. ^ < I U J 2 . oc p O
. . O c < U l X 3 O

C Z O o o o Z u . X X < _ • o a 5 z 4

5 6 7 8 y 1 0 I I 1 2 1 3 1 4 15 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 • 

### RD M itsel f state s tha t th e "Amendment " constitute s "additiona l relevant comment s fo

r consideration. " See "Amendment " a t p . 2 . I t i s nothin g mor

e tha n lat e advocac y fo

r claim s tha t RDM ha s alread

y articulate di

n som e 7 0 single-space dpage s of Complaint , Reply , andAnswe

r t o Motio n to Dismiss . Although tw o day s befor

e RD M filedit s untimely "Amendment, " the Director ha dextende dthe time fo

r issuanc e o f

th e Director' s determinatio n fro m Ma y 11 , 2010 , to July 30 , 2010 , tha t extensio n wa s deemednecessar y b y th e Director without th e burden o f

dealin g wit

h anothe r ten single-space dpage s o f untimely argument . Th e Directo r

shoul dstrik

e th e "Amendment " a s untimely an dprocee dto rende r adecisio n base dupo n th e origina l serie s of pleading s filedby Januar

y 11 , 2010 . I n th e alternative , shoul dth e Director choos e no t

to strik e the "Amendment, " ANC present s th e following : ANSWERT O *'AMENDMENT. "

RDM' s "Amendment " present s no ne w allegation s o f

violado n o f

federa l la w o r Sponso r Gran t Assurances , n o new facts or supportin g evidenc e fo

r allegation s previously asserted , n o ne

w lega l argument s supportin g thos e previou s allegations . A s note dabove , RD

M itsel f describe s th e "Amendment " a s merel y "additiona

l relevan t comments. " Ther

e bein g nothin g new t

o admit , den

y or stat e alac k o f knowledg e about , ANC will simpl

y commen t i n answe r t o RDM' s additiona

l comments . Although th e additiona

l comment s ar

e achalleng e t

o grasp , the cor

e messag e appear s t

o b e a n assertio n tha

t i n additio n to causin g RD M allege dharm .

Motio n t o Strik e "Amendment " t o Complain t and , in th e Alternative , Answe r t o "Amendment " Pag e 2 o f 6 RDM . LL C V

. AN C Docke t No . 16-09-1 4<

U J

- J > u . U J U J C S < I

- U J O C X a . u . U J o

u . O o o C M

_—" > ^ X 3 < » S o « <» > ° Z ' < u

> < U J ^

^ E 3 U > t o mz < C M < X U J 2 1 ff f O . . 0 E < U

J 1 5 o c z o o o o Z I t X X < . O Q
. S z

. - < C O o 4

5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0

2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 • 

### ANC' s leasin g polic y wa s not goo daviatio n policy , an dwa s hurtfiil t o the publi c interes t an dAlaskaaviation . AN

C strongly disagree s wit

h tha t notion . First , a s exhaustively outline di n previou s filings, AN

C treate dAGLA

D Postmark , LLC ("AGLAD")—^ANC' s direc t tenant i n which RD

M wa s a n investor — fairly , differing fi"omth e treatmen t o f previou s lessee' s base donl y o n validly distinguishin g circumstances .

Second , ha

dAN C provide dAGLA

D th e leniencie s it

sought , an

dtha t wer e truly unprecedente dunde r it s circumstances , AGLA

D likel y woul dhav e suffere

d a n eve n mor e colossa l collapse . Ha

dAGLA D manage dto begi n majo r excavatio n befor e it surely woul dhav e implode ddurin g th e continuin g economi c slide o f 2009 , th e financia l damag e woul dhav e been compoundedb y environmenta

l damag e an

dpossibly atremendou s deb t

load . I n arguin g tha

t it s projec t face da"perfec t

storm " o f turbulen t economi c conditions , RD

M seem s t o assume , without

basis , tha t AN C somehow ha

da n obligatio n to bai l AGLA

D ou t o f tha t situation . A s describe di

n th e initia l narrativ e o f

ANC' s origina

l Answer , the project AGLA D envisione dprove dsimply to o ambitiou s fo r AGLA D to accomplish , an

dthe economi c downtur

n certainly di dno t

help . Whethe

r AGLAD' s projec t

wa s to o costly fro mth e start , or

whethe r ther e wa s simpl

y insufficien

t air carg o deman

dto suppor

t thos e costs , ma

y neve r b e fiilly clear . Bu

t AGLAD' s projec t

faile dbecaus e it s economic s prove dt

o b e unsoundan

dit s develope

r incapabl e o f

sustainin g it , not becaus e o f

ANC' s requirement s o

r actions . ANC' s action s wer e sound , making th e

Motio n t o Strik e "Amendment " t o Complain t and , in th e Alternative , Answe r t o "Amendment " Pag e 3 o f 6 RDM , LL C V

. AN C Docke t No . 16-09-1 4<

c c U l

- J > U L U J 

### 2 ^ U J g S < KU J a X < • - 0 . u . U J o o U J o L L U
. O Z
. < i n < U J 2 (i , O C 2 ( A S g o Z 4 C M U J
_ j ^ ^ U J > 5 P < T U J e £ K o • . O K< U

J X 3 c c Z " o o o Z II
. X X < . y Q
. 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 I I 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 • • 

### undevelope dairpor

t landavailabl e again fo

r developmen

t b y atenant wit h apla n bette r matche dt o th e marketplac e an dth e developer' s demonstrate dfinancial capacity . Th e questio n i

n thi s matter , however , i s no t whethe r ANC' s leasin g polic y wa s ultimately perfect , nor whethe r differen t decisions , i

n hindsight , migh

t hav e bette

r promote daviatio n i

n Alask aa s RD M speculates . The onl

y questio n i s whethe

r ANC' s act s o r omission s a s to AGLA

D violate dfedera

l la w o r Gran t Assurance s i

n suc h awa y a s t o hav e harme dAGLAD , much les s directly an dsubstantially affectedRDM . Despit e RDM' s effor

t to compar

e AGLAD' s treatmen

t to tha t o f thre e ver y differen t tenants—^FedEx , UP S an

dAlaskaCargoPort—unde r ver y differen t circumstances , an

d despit e al l th e conclusor

y assertion s tha

t RDM wa s treate dunfairly , RDM' s origina l filings failedto demonstrat e an y violatio n o f

federa l la w o r Gran t Assurances . Th

e "Amendment " add s nothin g new . I n particular , RD

M point s t

o no lega l obligation , muc h les s one subject

to Par t 1 6 review , tha

t require dANC to sav e AGLA D fromit s ow n financial inabilit

y t o perfor mth e term s t

o which i

t agreed , whethe

r du e to AGLAD' s ow

n failure s o

r due t o globa l economi c conditions . Finally , i n the "Amendment " RDM ask s th e FA A fo r "[t]h e shutterin g o f fiirther publi c fundin

g t o TSAI A unti l prope

r an dcorrectiv e action s ar

e rendere d. . . . " Se e "Amendment " a

t 6 . RD M refer s t o "[o]ur claim s o f torts. " I da

t 7 . RD M ask s th e FA A to define "correctiv e action, " inducing AN C to mak e such correctio n b

y restrictin g ANC' s acces s to federa

l fiinding. Id . Repeatin g th e referenc e t o "harm s an

dtorts, " RD M wrap s itsel f

i n th e publi c interes t

whil e askin g th e FA

A to "demand , induce , an

d

Motio n t o Strik e "Amendment " t o Complain t and , in th e Alternative , Answe r t o "Amendment " Pag e 4 o f 6 RDM . LL C V

. AN C Docke t No . 16-09-1 4<

( E U J

- J > M U J U l P 2 < KU J O C X < C I - 0 , U . Il l O O U J u a o C M x5S g o w » = Z ,. r < • " ( E 3 ( A ( O Q Q Z < O

J U J I J .- ^ " l > < 1 ^ < T U J £ o c KO
. . O ( C < U l X 3 X Z o o o o z u : X X < ^ ( J Q
. S z T - < C O o 4

5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0

2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 •

asses s suc h correctiv e action s a s necessar y o f th e TSAI A . . . tha t

th e proces s o f

th e FA A unde r

PART-1 6 wil l mak e u s whol e .... " Wha t RD M reall y want s i s for th e FA A t o forc e AN C t o pa y compensatio n t o RD M unde r penalt y o f

losin g federal gran t

funding . Failin g that , RD M want s th e FA A t o rul e tha t AN C wa s non-complian t wit h federal la w s o RD M can tr y t o us e tha t rulin g i n anothe r

foru mt o deman dcompensatio n fromAN C unde r som e tor t theory . Par t

1 6 i s aproces s for

revie w t o ensur e ongoin g complianc e with federal law an dGran t

Assurances , no t

t o adjudicat e allege dpas t wrong s o r

t o ai dpartie s seekin g compensation . Th e "Amendment " make s clear that thi s entir e matte r

i s agros s abus e o f Par t 1 6 an dtha t

th e Complain t

shoul db e summaril y dismisse do n tha t basi s alone . CONCLUSIO N

AN C urge s th e Directo r t o strik e th e "Amendment " a s untimely , bu t failin g that , t o recogniz e RDM' s repeate dinvocatio n o f publi c polic y an dth e interes t o f aviatio n i n Alask aa s self-servin g attempt s t o gai n th e sympathie s o f th e Directo r

i n it s campaig n t o recove r

it s investmen t

losse s fromairport

revenues . AN C urge s th e Directo r t o se e thi s abus e o f

Par t 1 6 for wha t i t is , an deithe r

t o dismis s th e Complain t with prejudice , o r

determin e i t

t o b e withou t

meri t o n al l counts . DATE D thi s 27 * day o f

April , 201 0 at

Anchorage , Alaska. DANIE L S . SULLIVA N ATTORNE Y GENERA L 

### By : <^f^^(/ . /$tu^^jt ^ ioh n L . Steine r ' Senio r Assistan t Attorne y Genera l AB A No . 871110 8 Motio n t o Strik e "Amendment " t o Complain t and , i n th e Alternative , Answe r t o "Amendment " Pag e 5 o f 6 RDM , LLC V

. AN C Docke t No . 16-09-1 4<

o c U J

- I > U
. U J U J P s < I

- U J au . U J o o o C M UJ r : ; 8 t i n ^ < i n 2 t o < o Z < C

M U J 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 1 0 I I 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 • • Certificat e O f

Servic e I hereb y certif

y tha t o n Apri l 27 , 2010, 1 hav e thi s da y serve dth e foregoin g MOTIO N T O STRIK E UNTIMEL Y "AMENDMENT " T O COMPLAINT , AND , I N TH E ALTERNATIVE , ANSWE RT O "AMENDMENT" , an dth e (proposed ) ORDE R STRIKIN G "AMENDMENT " T O COMPLAINT " o n th e followin g person s a t th e followin g addresses : Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l Attn. : FA A Par t

1 6 Airpor t

Proceeding s Docket , AGC-61 0 Roo m92 5 80 0 Independenc e Ave. , S.W . Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Shau n Debenha m Managin g Member s o f

RDM , LL C 296 0 C Street , Suit e 20 2 Anchorage , A K

9950 3 via : D han ddeliver y D faxe d H maile d

^UW ^ <?V
. /^/Ci^^J^r. ^ JoluiiL . Steine r Senllo r Assistan t Attorne y Genera l Attorne y General' s Offic e Attorney s fo

r Te dSteven s Anchorag e Internationa l Airpor t

Motio n t o Strik e "Amendment " t o Complain t and , i n th e Alternative , Answe r t o "Amendment " Pag e 6 o f 6 RDM . LL C V

. AN C Docke t No . 16-09-1 4<

o c U J

- I > U
. U J U l P S < t - U l c c X U J o O U J o o Ji l 5 O OT » ? Z ' < i n < u ^ . Z X 3 M S m z < C M < ^ U J S . O £ < U

J X 5 az o o o o Z L L X X < . O Q
. S z 4

5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 ! ?" > 2 3 2 4 2 5 •



### UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D C RDM , LLC , Complainant , TE D STEVEN S ANCHORAG E INTERNATIONA

L AIRPORT , Respondent . Docke t No . 16-09-1 4 ORDE RSTRIKIN G "AMENDMENT " T O COMPLAIN T Th e Director

havin g reviewe dth e Stat e o f Alaska , Departmen

t o f Transportatio n an

dPubli c Facilities , TedSteven s Anchorag e Internationa l Airport' s MOTIO N TO STRIK

E "AMENDMENT " TO COMPLAINT , an dan y Opposition , Rebuttal , an

dall othe r document s pertainin g thereto , an dhavin g satisfie dhimself

tha t th e relie f requeste di

n th e motion i s warranted , hereb y grant s th e motion , an dstrike s RDM' s Amendmen

t t o Complain

t date dApri l 14 , 2010 , fo

r th e reason s state di

n th e above-reference dmotion .

I T I S S O ORDERE

D thi s da

y o f 2 0



### Randall Fiertz Director , Airpor

t Complianc e an

dFiel dOperation s Divisio n

Orde r Strikin g "Amendment " T o Complain t RDM . LL C V

. AN C Pag e 1 o f 1 Docke t No . 16-09-1 4