U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

___ w_A_sH_IN_GT-oN_, D_.c_. __ RECEIVED 

IN THE MATTER OF 

BAER AIR, INC. 

Respondent 

FAA CASE NO. 2011S0150234 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

NOT YET ASSIGNED 

Hearing Date: NOT YET ASSIGNED 

Hearing Location: NOT YET ASSIGNED 

APR 1 7 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

RESPONDENT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SET HEARING LOCATION 

COMES NOW, Respondent, Baer Air, Inc. (hereinafter "Baer Air"), by and through 

undersigned counsel, for good cause shown, and hereby moves to set Melbourne, Florida, as the 

location of the hearing in this matter. Neither a hearing date nor a hearing location has been set 

in this matter. In support thereof, Respondent states the following: 

Pursuant to Rule 13.221(b) Date, time, and location of the hearing, "[t]he administrative 

law judge to whom the proceedings have been assigned shall set a reasonable date, time, and 

location for the hearing. The administrative law judge shall consider the need for discovery and 

any joint procedural or discovery schedule submitted by the parties when determining the 

hearing date. The administrative law judge shall give due regard to the convenience of the parties, 

the location where the majority of the witnesses reside or work, and whether the location is 

served by a scheduled air carrier." 
Section 554(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act also provides in part: "[i]n fixing the 

time and place for hearings, due regard shall be had for the convenience and necessity of the 

parties." 5 U.S.C. § 554(b). 

"The Rules of Practice under 14 C.F.R. part 13, subpart G, do not specifically define the 

factors involved in considering the convenience of the parties. Fortunately, there is ample 

guidance on the issue in federal caselaw. When considering the convenience of the parties for the 

purpose of determining venue, many private and public interest factors may be considered." In 

the Matter of Liberty Foundation, Inc., Docket No. FAA-2012-0477, 2012 FAA LEXIS 370, 3-5 

(2012) (citations omitted). 

"The factors specified in 14 C.F .R. § 13.221 were intended to be "flexible enough to 

avoid hardship to either the respondent or the witnesses involved in a particular case."" Id. citing 

54 Fed. Reg. 11914, 11916. 

"In addition, any other factors deemed relevant by the administrative law judge may also 

be considered, in order to address the needs of the parties, the needs ofthe witnesses involved, 

and to avoid hardship." Id. citing Baicker-McKee eta!., Federal Civil Rules Handbook, § 2.14 

(Venue) and§ 2.15 (Forum Non Conveniens)(19th ed. 2012)(private factors in considering 

venue may include the following: 1) ease of access to evidence; (2) the cost for witnesses to 

attend trial; (3) the availability of compulsory process; and ( 4) other factors that might shorten 

trial or make it less expensive); See, also, 55 Fed. Reg. 27548, 27561 (discussion offmal rule 

July 3, 1990) ("If the place where the incident occurred is a relevant factor ... either party is free 

to raise that issue ... "). 

"Although not required by the Rules of Practice, in a venue dispute the parties "are 

encouraged to explain or support their suggested venue location so that the administrative law 

2 
judge is aware of these considerations at the time of the [venue] determination." Id. citing 55 Fed. 

Reg.27548,27561. 

In accordance with the factors set forth above, Melbourne, Florida is the appropriate and 

necessary hearing location under the circumstances of the present case because it is convenient 

and readily accessible for the parties and their witnesses, as well as the location of the Federal 

Aviation Administration inspection that gave rise to the Complaint in this matter. 

Specifically, Baer Air is incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida and maintains 

its principal place of business in Melbourne, Florida. Likewise, the allegations in the Complaint 

arise from an inspection performed by the Federal Aviation Administration of Baer Air's facility 

located in Melbourne, Florida. As such, Melbourne, Florida provides the easiest access to 

relevant evidence, while also being convenient and readily accessible by the parties and their 

witnesses. 

Furthermore, Melbourne International Airport (KMLB) is serviced by scheduled air 

carriers on a daily basis, and is therefore also readily accessible to Administrative Law Judges 

located outside of the State of Florida. 

Significantly, Agency counsel does not oppose setting the location for the hearing of this 

matter in Melbourne, Florida. Gregory S. Winton, Esq., counsel for Bair Air, has contacted 

Vincent Bennett, Esq., Agency counsel, who represented that the Agency does not oppose setting 

Melbourne, Florida as the hearing venue. 

WHEREFORE, in the interest of justice, and for good cause shown, Respondent 

respectfully requests that the hearing location be set for Melbourne, Florida. 

3 
Dated: April15, 2014 

4 

Respectfully submitt~d, 

Grt,gory/S. Winton, Esq. 

Jared"M. Allen, Esq. 

The Aviation Law Firm 

One Research Court, Suite 450 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Tel: (301) 294-8550 

Fax: (866) 568 9886 

Counsel for Respondent 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date sent via U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, an original and one 

copy of the foregoing Respondent's Unopposed Motion To Set Hearing Location addressed to: 

ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building--Suite 2W1 000 

And, further, that I have this date sent by electronic mail and by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, a 

copy of the foregoing addressed to: 

ONE COPY 

Vincent Bennett 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ANE-7 

12 New England Executive Park 

Burlington, MA 01803 

ATTN: Vincent J. Bennett 

Tel: (781) 238-8044 

Fax: (781) 238-7055 

Vincent.bennett@faa.gov 

ONE COPY (VIA U.S. MAIL ONLY) 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, S.E. 

Washingto11,;E).c. 20590 

lb ';fa~·~ 

Dated: April 15; 014 I 

G:/:2:.60 tA1 Aett-zJ ;:: .• • 5 

/J:ifed M. Allen, Esq. 

Frhe Aviation Law Firm 

5 

One Research Court, Suite 450 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Tel: (301) 294-8550 

Fax: (866) 568-9886