U . S . DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO

N OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . APPLICATION O

F EMPIR E AIRWAYS For fee s an d expense s unde

r th e Equa l Acces s to Justic e Ac t EAJA-EA-000 1 ^ i i t^v:; ^

~-- ^ «.i*« W H (g r 

### SEP 2 7 201 0 u'"e.B^M G DOCKE T

n o FA A DOCKE

T NO . CP10EA000 8 ^ -^S^ ^ xr ^Os : FDM S NO . FAA-2010-078 7 - ^ 3^ 5 "D APPLICANT' S REPL Y T O TH E AGENCY' S ANSWE R] E T O EQUA L ACCES S T O JUSTIC E AC T APPLICATIO N AN D REQUES T FO RFURTHE RPROCEEDING S COME S NOW , Empir

e Airways , Applican

t herein , b y and throug h undersigne d counsel , pursuan

t t o §14.2 3 of

th e Procedura

l Rule s (1 4 C.F.R . Par

t 14) , and hereb y replie s t o th e Agency' s Answe

r to it s Applicatio n fo

r fee s an d expense s filed pursuan

t t o th e Equa l Acces s to Justic e Act

(EAJA) . Furthermore , pursuan t t o §14.2 6 o f

th e Procedura l Rule s (1 4 C.F.R . Par

t 14) , Applican

t hereb y respectfully request s tha t th e Honorable Administrativ e La w Judg e orde

r furthe r proceedings , such a s a

n informa l conference , ora

l argument , additiona

l written submissions , or

a n evidentiar

y hearing , i f necessar y fo r aful l an d fai r resolutio n o f

th e issue s arisin g fro

mth e application . Sinc e th e Agency di d no t

challeng e whethe

r Applican t i s financially qualified t

o receiv e a n EAJ A award ; whethe

r th e claimed attorneys ' fee s and expense s ar e reasonabl e unde r th e circumstances ; whethe

r specia l circumstance s mak

e a n EAJ A awar d imjust ; o r whethe r th e agency wa s substantially justifie d i n prosecutin g thi s matte r a t eac h stag e of 

### o ' C O c > ^the proceeding , thos e challenge s hav e been waived . A s aresult , sol e remainin g issu e i s

whethe r Applican t i s th e prevailin g party . Sinc e th e Agency ha s no t and cannot

estabUs h tha t Applican t i s no t th e prevailin g party , th e EAJ A applicatio n mus t

b e grante d i n full . I n suppor t thereof , Applican t state s th e following : PROCEDURA L HISTOR Y 1 . O n Februar y 16,2010 , th e Agency filed it s Complain t in thi s matter . 2 . On March 12,2010 , Applican t filed a n Answer , assertin g th e affirmative defens e tha t "Empir e Airways , a

t all relevan

t time s herein , wa s no t

th e owne r o r operator of aDiamond DA-2 0 aircraft , identificatio n numbe r N383CA " (the subject aircraf t in question) . 3 . A s aresult , th e Agency wa s awar e sinc e March 12,2010 , tha t Empir e Airway s wa s no t th e compan

y tha t committed th e allege d violations . Nevertheless , th e Agency continue d to needlessly prosecut e thi s matte

r agains t Empir e Airways . 4 . O n March 24,2010 , aNotic e o f Appearanc e wa s filed b y Charle s J . Casolaro , Esq. , on behalf

o f Empir e Airways . 5 . Betwee

n Ma y 1 8 an d Ma y 24,2010 , aserie s emai l exchange s and aletter from Joh n Zaremba , Presiden

t of Empir e Airways , wer

e directe d t o Agenc y counsel , Zachar y M . Berman , Esq. , advisin g th e Agency tha t Gregor y S . Winton , Esq. , ha

d been retaine d b y Empir

e Airway s i n thi s matter . Se e Exhibi t 1 and Exhibi t

2 . 6 . O n June 1,2010 , aNotic e o f

Appearanc e an

d Substitutio n o f

Counsel wa s filed by Gregor y S . Winton , Esq. , o n behal f of Empir e Airways .7 . Following th e Notic e of Appearanc e and Substitutio n o f Counsel filing on Jim

e 1 , 2010 , Agency counse l directe d all futur e filings, notices , an d correspondenc e concerning thi s matte

r t o Mr . Winton' s office on behal f o f Empir e Airways . 8 . Afle r Jim e 1 , 2010 , forme

r counsel , Mr . Casolar

o wa s n o longe

r include d o n th e servic e lis t b y eithe r Mr . Winton o

r th e Agency . However , unbeknowns t t o Mr . Winton , th e Hearing Docke t Cler k an d La w Judge' s office di d no t

substitut e Mr . Winton fo r Mr . Casolar

o on th e servic e list . 9 . O n Jim e 21,2010 , th e Agency filed aMotion to Withdra w Complain

t Withou t Prejudice . I

n it s Motion to Withdraw , th e Agency acknowledge d tha t ^Hh e compan y tha i committe d th e allege d violatio n wa s no t Entir e Airways ^ 10 . B y Orde

r serve d o n Jun e 23,2010 , th e Honorable Isaa c D . Benkin , Administrativ e La

w Judge , dismisse d th e proceeding s and cancelle d th e hearing , statin g the following : All that lea n do no

w i s t o follo w th e dictate o f

§13.21 5 an d dismis s thi s eas e wit h prejudice . 11 . O n Jun e 23,2010 , th e above-describe d Orde r Dismissin g Proceedin g an d Canceling Hearin g was served upon Mr . Casolaro , o n behal f o f Empir e Airways . Mr . Winton neve

r receive d acopy o f

th e Order . 12 . O n July 1,2010 , th e Honorabl e Isaa c D . Benkin , Administrativ e La w Judge , issue d a n Orde r on Notic e of

Withdrawa

l of Complaint . Tha

t Orde r wa s als o served upon Mr . Casolaro , o n behalf o f Empir e Airways . Mr . Winton neve r receive d acopy o f

th e Order .13 . O

n July 6,2010 , anothe

r Notic e o f Appearanc e wa s filed b y undersigne d counsel , Gregor y S . Winton , Esq. , o n behalf o r Respondent , Empir

e Airways . 14 . Thereafter , o n July 26,2010 , th e Honorabl e Isaa c D . Benkin , responde d to a n email fromMr . Winton regardin g th e statu s o f th e case . Th e la

w judg e state d th e following : Dea r Mr . Winton : Yo u nee d t o rea d the order s an d notice s I issu e i n you r cases . Exhibit 3 . I t i s abundantly clea

r fromth e la

w judge' s email tha

t h e wa s als o imawar

e tha t Mr . Winton ha

d neve r been served wit

h copie s of

th e Notice s and Orders . 15 . Immediatel

y following receip t

o f th e abov e email , Mr . Winto n contacte d th e Hearing Docke

t Cler k i n orde r to determine which order s and notice s th e Honorable Judg e Benkin ha d issue d in th e case . 16 . A s such , it

wa s no t unti l July 26,2010 , tha

t Mr . Winto n learne d h e ha

d no t bee n served wit h an y o f th e la w judge' s Orders . 17 . O n July 26,2010 , Mr . Winto n wa s served wit h copie s o f

th e la w judge' s order s by facsimile transmission . Se e Exhibit 4 . 18 . Although Agenc y counsel wa s awar e tha t Mr . Winton ha

d neve r receive d copie s of th e la w judge' s Orders , n o attemp t wa s mad e to rectif y th e oversight . 19 . O n Augus t 6,2010 , Empir

e Airways , b y an d throug h undersigne d counsel , filed a n Applicatio n fo

r attorney fee s an

d Expense s Pursuan

t to th e Equa

l Acces s to Justic e Act .ARGUMEN T I . TH E EAJ A APPLICATIO N WA S TIMEL Y FILED . A s mor e fiill y discusse d herein , th e Applicatio n fo r attorney fee s an

d expense s wa s timely filed considerin g th e dat e on which imdersigne d counsel receive d copie s o f th e la w judge' s order s originally served on Jun e 23,2010 , and July 1,2010 . Following the appearanc e of

undersigne d counsel on Jun e 1,2010 , th e Agency attorney immediatel y stopped serving forme

r counsel , Mr . Casolaro , and onl y serve d Mr . Winto n wit

h all futur e Pleading s and Notices . Notwithstandin g th e Agency' s acknowledgemen t o f Mr . Winton a s counsel o f

recor d i n th e case . Agency counsel no w argue s that th e la w judge' s sole servic e upon forme

r counsel , Mr. , Casolaro , shoul d suffice t o ba r Applican t from filing a n otherwis e timely EAJ

A Application . Suc

h a n argimien t i s defie s logi c an

d lack s an y basi s in la

w o r fact. . Pursuan t to 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 in 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 o f 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 dat e o n which a

n unappealed decisio n become s administratively final." Unde r 1 4 C.F.R . § 14.233(a) , a part y ha s 1 0 day s afte

r servic e o f awritten initia

l decisio n t o file a

n appeal . I

n thi s case , th e Administrativ e La

w Judge' s Orde

r on Notic e o f

Withdrawa

l o f Complain t wa s served on Jul y 1,2010 . Sinc e th e July 1,2010 , Orde r wa s no t appealed , th e final dispositio n o f th e cas e wa s 1 0 day s later , or on Monday , July 12 , 2010 \Thus , Applican t wa s require d t o submi t th e EAJ A applicatio n 3 0 day s later , or befor e Augus t 11,2010 . Sinc e Empir

e

' Th e 10 * da y afte r Jul y 1,2010 , fel l o n aSunday , Jul y 11,2010 . Therefore

, th e las t dat e fo r filing a n appea l wa s Monday , Jul y 12,2010 .Airway s filed a n Applicatio n fo

r attorney fee s and expense s o n Augus t 6,2010 , th e Applicatio n wa s timely filed. Nevertheless , i f

th e Honorabl e La

w Judg e determine s in thi s cas e tha t th e final Orde r wa s served o n Jun e 23,201 0 , Applicant' s counse l di d no t receiv e acopy o f

tha t Orde r unti l July 26,2010 . Therefore , in th e interes t of judicial fairness , th e servic e dat e o f the Orde r shoul d b e calculate d fromJuly 26,2010 . I n tha t case , th e Applicatio n was timel y filed. If th e Applicatio n i s denie d a s aresult o f a n untimely filing. Empir

e Airway s will b e undul y prejudice d b y n o faul

t o f it s ow n o r tha t of it s counsel , Mr . Winton . II . APPLICAN T HA S PREVAILE D IN THI S PROCEEDING . I n thi s case , th e dismissa

l wa s wit h prejudice , which som

e court s hav e foun

d sufficien t fo r "prevailin g party " statu s unde r Buckhannon Boar d an d Car e Home , Inc . v . Wes t Virgini aDepartment

o f Healt h an d Huma

n Resources , 53 2 U.S . 59 8 (2001) , whe n re s judicat awil l prevent

aplaintif f fromrefillin g aclaim . Se

e e.g . Highwa

y Equip . Co . v. FECO , Ltd . 46 9 F.3 d 1027,103 5 (Fed . Cir . 2006) ; Claiborn e v . Wisdom , 41 4 F.3 d 715 , 71 9 (7t h Cir . 2005) ; Mile s v . California , 32 0 F.3 d 986,98 9 (9t h Cir . 2003) ; Mothe

r & Fathe r v . Cassidy , 33 8 F.3 d 704 , 70 8 (7t h Cir . 2003) . Thes e case s hav e hel d a s muc h precisel y becaus e avoluntar

y dismissa l wit h prejudic e "effect s amateria l alteratio n o f [the ] lega l relationship wit

h th e othe r parties , becaus e it

terminate s an

y claim s [th

e plaintiff ] ma y hav e ha d agains t [th e defendants ] arisin g ou

t o f thi s set o f operativ e facts. " Claiborne , 41 4 F.3 d a

t 719 ; se e als o Noxel

l Corp . v . Firehous e No . I Bar-B-Qu e Restaurant , 77 1 F.2 d 521 , 52 5 (D.C . Cir c 1985 ) ("I n contras t to aplaintif

f who establishe s onl

y arigh t to procee d further , defendan t Firehous e ha s here achieve d a n

^ Administrative La

w Judge' s Orde

r Dismissing Proceeding an

d Cancelling Hearing .enduring victory . Noxell' s suit stand s dismissed , and Noxel l i s foreve r barre d from reinstitutin g th e actio n i n th e Distric t of Columbia.") . Here , Empir

e Airway s achieved ajudiciall y sanctione d alteratio n in th e parties ' relationship : it

obtaine d court-ordere d terminatio n o f th e proceedin g and a

n abandonmen

t of all claim s by th e FA

A i n th e pendin g action . Th

e abandonmen

t o f federa l claim s wa s give n preclusiv e effec

t in th e pending action , an d wa s neve

r reversed , dissolve d o

r undone . A s aresult . Empir e Airway s achieved final preclusiv e judgmen t o n th e merits . Nevertheless , arul e whic h woul d allo w th e FAA , throug h voluntar y dismissal , to moo

t th e preclusiv e effec

t o f ajudicial orde

r caimot b e square d wit

h th e Suprem

e Court' s holding in Buckhannon . Th e Agency' s relianc e upo n th e holdin g in Turne r an d Coona

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 ) i s grossly misplaced . Th e EAJ A applicatio n filed b y Captain s Turne r an d Conna n aros e unde

r th e Nationa

l Transportatio n Safet y Board' s Rule s o f

Practice , 4 9 C.F.R . Par

t 82 1 an d Par t 826 . The present

cas e i s controlle d by th e Rule s o f

Practic e codified a

t 1 4 C.F.R . Par

t 1 3 an d Par

t 14 . Furthermore , following avoluntar y withdrawa

l o f th e Complaint s by th e FA

A in Turne r an d Connan , th e Cour

t foun d tha t th e case s wer

e no t dismisse d wit

h prejudice . B y contrast , in th e present

case , following voluntar

y withdrawa

l b y th e FAA , th e Complain t wa s dismisse d wit

h prejudice . Therefore , th e case s ar e factually distinguishable .Th e majo r distinctio n between th e NTSB' s Rule s o f Practic e an d th e FAA' s Rule s of Practice , involv e th e specifi c wa y i n which acas e ma

y b e voluntar

y dismisse d by th e Agency . I n th e present

case , 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.21 5 entitled . Withdrawa l o f complain t o r reques t fo r hearing. , state s th e following : A t an y time befor

e or durin g ahearing , a

n agency attorney ma

y withdra w a complain t or apart y ma y withdra w areques t

fo r ahearin g without

th e consen

t o f th e administrativ e la

w judge . If

a n agency attorne

y withdraw s th e complain

t o r a part y withdraw s th e reques t

fo r ahearin g 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 . 1 4 C.F.R . §13.215 . Furthermore , 1 4 C.F.R , §14.20 , entitle d Whe n an applicatio n ma

y b e filed , state s th e following , i

n part : (a ) A n [EAJA] applicatio n ma

y b e filed wheneve

r th e applican

t ha s prevaile d in th e proceeding , but

i n n o 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 , o

r servic e o f th e orde r o f th e Administrator

in aproceedin g unde

r th e AMS . (c ) For purpose s o f

thi s part , final dispositio n mean s th e late r of : (5 ) Issuanc e of

afina l orde r o r an y othe r fina l resolutio n o f

aproceeding , suc h a s asettlemen

t or voluntar y dismissal , which i s no t

subject t o a petitio n fo r reconsideration . 1 4 C.F.R . §14.20 (emphasi s added) . Accordingly , it

i s clea r tha t th e Rule s o f

Practic e concernin g Civi l Penalt y proceeding s initiate d b y th e FAA , consider s a'^voluntar y dismissal " t o b e a"fina

l disposition " triggerin g th e tim e t o file a n Applicatio n unde

r th e EAJA . Notwithstandin g the above , th e Agency ha s no t and cannot

cit e an y authorit y t o suppor

t it s positio n tha

t a voluntar y dismissal , wit

h prejudic e unde

r Rule 13.215 , i s no t

insufficien

t t o file a n EAJ A applicatio n unde

r Rule 14.20 . Therefore , th e Applicatio n shoul d b e granted i n full . 8A . Th e Buckhanno n Cour t Di d No t Expressl y Hol d Tha t

Onl y Judgment s o n th e Merit s Qualif y aPrevailin g Party . I n Buckhannon , th e Suprem e Cour t articulate d th e tes t

fo r determinin g whe

n a litigan t qualifie s a s aprevailin g part y unde r certai n federa

l fee-shifting statutes . Unde r Buckhannon , th e inquir

y fo r determining th e prevailin g part y require s a

n examinatio n o

f whethe r th e part y seekin g fee s ha s experience d ajudiciall y sanctione d materia l alteratio n i n th e lega l relationship o f

the partie s in th e lawsuit . Se e Id . a t 605 . The Suprem

e Cour t considered whethe

r aplaintif f who ha s failed t o secur

e afinal judgmen t o n th e merit s o

r a court-ordere d consen

t decree , but

ha s nevertheles s achieve d th e desire d resul t becaus e th e lawsui t brough t abou t avoluntar

y chang e in th e defendant' s conduct , ca n b e deeme

d a prevailin g part

y fo r purpose s o f

warrantin g afee award . I n rejecting th e "catalys t

theory " fo

r determinin g prevailin g part y fe e awards , th e Suprem e Cour t distinguishe d court-ordere d o r judiciall y sanctione d relie f fromfavorable outcome s tha

t result from avoluntary , extra-judicia l chang e in th e defendant' s conduct . Th e Cour t cite d final judgment s on th e merit s an d court-ordere d consen

t decree s a s example s o

f judiciall y enforceabl e relief , which stan

d i n contras t

t o relie f obtaine d a s a resul t o f defendant' s unilatera

l acts . Se e Id . a t 604 . Specifically , th e Suprem

e Cour t held : A defendant' s voluntar

y chang e i n conduct , although perhap s accomplishin g wha t the plaintif

f sough t to achiev e by th e lawsuit , lack s th e necessar y judicia l imprimatu r o n th e change . Ou

r precedent s thu s counsel agains t holdin g tha

t th e ter m"prevailin g party " authorize s a n awar d o f attorney' s fee s withou

t a corresponding alteratio n in th e lega l relationship of

th e parties . Id . a t 60 5 (emphasi s in original) . Th e Suprem e Cour t surveyed it s pas t

holding s awardin g attorney' s fee s wher e plaintif f obtaine d ajudgment

o n th e merit s o

r acourt-ordere d consent

decree , an

d it srefusa

l to awar d fee s wher

e aplaintif

f failed to obtai n an

y judicia l relie f

o n th e merit s but , instead , simpl

y survive d directe d verdic t o r secured ajudicial pronouncemen t - withou t an y accompanying judicial relie f - tha t defendan t violate d th e Constitution . Se e Id . a t 605-606 . Th

e Court' s focu s a s reflected in Buckhannon ha s been th e judicial natur e an d court-ordere d genesi s o f

th e relie f obtaine d which in tur

n effectuate s achang e in th e parties ' lega

l relationship . Thus , whil e Buckhannon recognize d tha t "[njeve r hav e we awarded attorney' s fee s fo

r anonjudicial 'alteratio n o f actua l circumstances,' " th e Cour t did not expressl y hol d tha t onl y judgment s on th e merit s qualif y aprevailin g party . Id . a

t 60 6 (citatio n omitted) . Nowher e in Buckhannon di d th e Suprem e Cour t expressly requir

e immunit y from futur e sui t a s aconditio n to a

n awar d o f fees . Id . (citatio n omitted) . Instead , th e tes t tha t th e Cour t establishe d i s broa

d enoug h to encompas s acour

t ordere d terminatio n of proceeding , a s i

n th e present

case : "[A ] 'prevailin g party ' i s one who ha s bee n awarded som e relie f by th e court. " Id . a

t 603 . Thus , th e questio n i s whethe r som e court-ordere d relie f

i s obtaine d i n th e lawsui

t (a s opposed to b

y virtu e o f amer e chang e in circumstances) , no t whethe r afull y litigate d preclusiv e judgment

i s entered . Se

e Id . a t 615-619 . B . Th e Judicia l Imprimatu r Standar d Unde r

th e Prevailin g Part y Requiremen t

of th e EAJA . Th e Suprem e Cour t se t th e genera

l standard s fo

r defining th e ter

m"prevailing party " in federa

l attorneys ' fee s shifting statute s i n Buckhannon , 53 2 U.S . 598 , acas e concerned wit

h fe e statute s othe

r tha n th e EAJA. ^ Specifically , Buckhannon set s th e

^ Buckhanno

n involve d provision s o f th e Federa l Housin g Amendment

s Ac t o f 1988,4 2 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(2 ) an d th e American s wit h Disabilitie s Ac t o f 199 0 ("ADA") , 4 2 U.S.C . § 12205 . 1 0minimu

mstandard s fo

r prevailin g part

y statu s unde

r th e EAJA . "[T]he Suprem

e Court' s reasoning in 'Buckhannon i s presumed t o appl y generally to all fee-shifting statute s tha t us e the prevailin g part

y terminology.' " Do e v. Boston Pub . Schs. , 35 8 F.3 d 20,2 5 (1s t Cir . 2004)) ; see als o M av. Chertoff , 547 F.3 d 342 , 34

4 (2 d Cir . 2008) . Th e Suprem e Cour t hel d tha t mer e succes s in accomplishin g aparty' s objective s i s insufficien

t t o b e aprevailin g part

y fo r afe e award . Buckhannon , 53 2 U.S . a t 606 . Th e Cour t rejected th e "catalyst " theor y which ha

d been accepte d b y man

y circuits . The Suprem e Cour t note d tha t us e of th e catalys t

theor y woul d hav e th e advers e effec t of discouraging th e governmen t fromvoluntarily settlin g case s (pre-sui t or post-suit) . See Id . a t 60 8 (noting th e "disincentiv e tha t th e 'catalys t

theory ' ma

y hav e upo n adefendant' s decision t o voluntarily chang e it s conduct") . The Cour t state d tha t it s plai n languag e approac h serve d th e purpos e of

avoidin g th e result

of asecond majo

r litigatio n ove

r attorneys ' fees . Se

e Id . a t 609-11 . Buckhanno

n explicitly identifie d tw o an d onl y tw o situation s whic h meet th e judicia l imprimatu

r requirement : wher

e plaintif f ha s "receive d ajudgmen t

o n th e merits " o r "obtained acourt-ordere d consen t decree. " Id . a

t 605 . The Cour

t wa s clea r tha t "settlemen t agreement s enforced throug h aconsent decree " ma

y b e th e basi s fo

r fe e award s an d th e resultin g chang e i n th e lega l relationship between th e partie s mus t b e "court-ordered. " Id . a

t 604 . Th e chang e i n th e lega l relationship mus t

b e a"judicially sanctioned change. " Id . a

t 605 . Th e Suprem e Cour t ha s describe d wha

t it mean t by a"court-ordere d consen t decree. " It distinguishe d suc

h consen t decree s from"privat

e settlements " (a s to which fee s ma y no t b e awarded) , statin g tha

t "[pjrivat e settlement s do no t

entai l th e judicial

1 1approva

l and oversigh

t involve d i n consen

t decrees. " Id . a

t 604 . Buckhannon contraste d final judgment s o n th e merit s an d court-ordere d consen

t decree s wit

h situation s which failed t o mee t th e judicial imprimatu

r test : fo r example , securing th e reversa

l of adirecte d verdict , acquirin g ajudicial pronouncemen t tha t a defendan t ha s violate d th e Constitutio n unaccompanie d b y "judicia l relief, " or

obtainin g a non-judicia

l "alteratio n o f

actua l circumstances. " Id . a

t 605-06 . The Suprem

e Cour t emphasize d thre e relate d factors . The first wa s tha t th e chang e in lega

l relationship mus t

b e "court-ordered. " See Id . a t 604 . Second , ther

e mus t b e judicia l approva l o f th e relie f in relatio n to th e merit s o f

th e case . Third , ther

e mus t b e judicia l oversigh t an d abilit y to enforc e th e obligation s impose d o n th e parties . Se e Buckhannon , 53 2 U.S . a

t 60 4 n. 7 (noting tha

t judicial oversigh

t i s inheren t i n consen t decree s but

no t in privat e settlements) . However , th e Suprem e Cour t i n Buckhannon did no t hold tha t dispositio n othe

r tha n afina l judgment

o n th e merit s ca

n confe r prevailin g part y status . C . Severa l Unite d State s Circui t Court s o f Appeal s Hav e Recognize d Tha t PrevaUin g Part y Statu s Doe s No t Requir e Fina l Preclusiv e Judgmen t o n th e Merits . Severa l federa l circui t court s hav e expressly recognize d tha t unde r Buckhannon disposition s othe

r tha n final judgment s on th e merit s ca n confe r prevailin g part

y status . Mor e significantly , severa

l circuit s hav e conferred prevailin g part y statu s o n plaintiff

s wh o obtain interimrelief

, eve n whe n plaintif f ultimately fail s o n th e merit s o f th e case , fail s t o obtain permanen

t relief , o r th e underlyin g claim s ar

e rendere d moot . Th e Secon d Circuit in Vacchio v

. Ashcroft , 404 F.3 d 66 3 (2 d Cir . 2005) , expressl y rejected th e contentio n tha t plaintif f i s considere d aprevailin g part y onl y if th e cour t

1 2fmall

y adjudicated th e merit s o f plaintif f s claim . I n finding plaintif

f th e prevailin g party , th e Secon d Circuit foun d th e materia

l alteratio n tes t

applie s t o "any interi mjudicial relie f tha t alter s th e parties ' lega

l relationship. " Id . a

t 673 . I n tha t case , th e cour

t stated : Buckhannon doe s no t

limit fe e award s to enforceable judgment s o n th e merit s o r to consen t decrees . While thes e order s wer e cite d b y th e Cour

t a s example s of

th e type s of action s tha

t woul d conve

y th e judicial imprimatu

r necessar y t o afe e award , broade

r languag e in Buckhannon indicate s tha t thes e example s ar

e no t a n exclusiv e list . Id . a t 67 4 (quotin g Pres . Coalitio n v . Fed . Transit Admin. , 35 6 F.3 d 444 , 45 2 (2 d Cir , 2004 ) (quoting Buckhannon , 53 2 U,S , a t 604)) , Applying thi s reasoning , th e Secon d Circuit foun d plaintif f wa s aprevailin g part

y fo r having obtaine d a

n interi morde

r granting himreleas e pendin g appeal , eve n absen t preclusiv e final judgment

on th e merits , becaus e th e rulin g "involve d a n assessmen

t o f the merits , [and] unquestionably materially altere d th e existin g lega l relationship betwee

n th e parties. " Id . Furthermore , i

n Roberso n v . Giuliani , 34 6 F.3 d 7 5 (2d Cir . 2003) , th e Secon d Circuit expressl y rejecte d anarro w readin g o f Buckhannon tha

t woul d limi t

relie f t o fina l judgment s on th e merits : W e therefor e joi n th e majorit

y of court s t o hav e considere d th e issu e sinc e Buckhannon i n concludin g tha t judicia l actio n other

tha n ajudgmen t

on the merit s o r aconsent

decre e ca n suppor t an awar d o f

attorney' s fees , s o long a s suc h actio n carrie s wit

h i t sufficien t judicial imprimatur . Id . a t 81-8 2 (emphasi s added) ; se e als o Pere z v

, Westcheste

r Count y Dep' t ofCorr. , 58 7 F,3 d 143 , 150

- 15 1 (2d Cir . 2009 ) (rejectin g contentio n tha t Buckhannon limite d prevailin g part y statu s to final judgment s o n th e merits , consen t decree s or

court-ordere d settlement s and stating : "Although th e Suprem e Cour t specifically mentione d merit s decision s an

d consen t decrees , i t

di d no t sugges t that one o f thes e tw o condition s wa s necessar

y fo r apart y t o prevail . Indeed , i t

referred to the

ma s 'examples ' o f

sufficien t outcomes." ) (emphasi s added) . Th e majorit y o f circuit s to have considere d th e issu e hav e refused to construe Buckhanno

n a s restrictin g prevailin g part y statu s to litigant s who obtai n fina l judgment 1 3on th e merits . See , e.g. , Dearmor e v . Cit y o f Garland , 51 9 F.3 d 517 , 52 1 (5ti i Cir . 2008 ) ("Although a

n enforceabl e judgment

o n th e merit s an

d acourt-ordere d consen

t decree have sufficien

t judicial imprimatur , thes e example s ar e no t exclusive.") ; N . Cheyenn

e Trib e v. Jackson , 43 3 F.3 d 1083 , 108 5 (8t h Cir . 2006 ) (notin g open questio n whethe r cour t orders , such a s declarator y judgment s an

d preliminar

y injunctions , ma

y creat e judiciall y sanctione d materia l alteratio n in parties ' relationship) ; Smalbein v . Cit y o f Dayton aBeach , 35 3 F.3 d 901 , 90 5 (11t h Cir . 2003 ) (concludin g tha t "judicia l actio n wit

h sufficien t judicial imprimatu

r othe r tha n ajudgment

o n th e merit s o r

acourt-ordere d consen t decre e ma

y allo w fo

r a n awar d o f attorney' s fees.") ; TD . v . Lagrang e School Dist. , 34 9 F.3 d 469,47 8 (7t h Cir . 2003 ) (" alitigan

t mus t hav e obtaine d ajudgment

on tiie merits , aconsen

t decree , or

som e simila r for mof judiciall y sanctione d relief") ; se e als o Bell V . B d o f Count y Comm'r s o f

Jefferson County , 45 1 F.3 d 1097 , 110 3 (10t h Cir . 2006 ) (privat e settlemen

t agreement s ca

n qualify) ; Truesdell v. Philadelphi aHous . Autk , 29 0 F.3 d 159,16 4 (3 d Cir . 2002 ) (judiciall y enforceable settlement s ca n suffice) . Th e Nint h Circui t ha s expressly rejecte d overly narro w interpretation s of Buckhanno

n an d ha s hel d o n numerou s occasion s tha t "judgment s an d consen

t decree s ar e example s .. . but

the y ar e no t the onl y examples " of

judicial actio n sufficien

t t o conve y prevailin g part

y status . Watso

n v. Count y o f Riverside , 30 0 F.3 d 1092 , 109 6 (9t h Cir . 2002 ) (emphasi s added) ; se e als o Carbonel l v. INS , 42 9 F.3 d 894 , 89 9 (9tii Cir . 2005 ) (recognizin g tha

t litigant s ca

n prevai l fo

r purpose s o f

fee s "a s aresul t

o f judicial action otiie

r tha n ajudgment

on the merits") ; Richar d S . v . Dep' t o f Developmenta

l Servs. , 31 7 F.3 d 1080,108 6 (9tii Cir . 2003 ) ("prevailin g part y statu s i s no t

determine d by th e degree o f

succes s achieve d . , . [it] i s determine d b y inquirin g whethe r th e party' s

1 4'"actua l relie f o n th e merit s of

[their ] claimmaterially alter s th e lega l relationshi

p betwee n th e partie s b y modifying th e defendant' s behavior in awa y tha t directly benefit s the plaintiff,'" ) (citatio n omitted) ; Tipton-Whittingha mv. Cit y o f LA. , 31 6 F,3 d 1058 , 106 2 (9t h Cir . 2003 ) {Buckhannon' s example s of judgment s and consen

t decree s ar

e "illustrative , not

exhaustive " type s o f

relie f capabl e o f

conferring prevailin g part

y status) . Thes e case s demonstrat

e tha t circui t court s uniforml

y confe r prevailin g part

y statu s on plaintiff

s who obtai n interi mrelie f

without securin g afinal preclusiv e judgment . B y definition , preliminar

y injunction s an

d stay s ar e no t preclusiv e i n th e pendin g action an d ar e accorde d n o preclusiv e effec t in futur e action s between th e parties . Preliminar y relief caimo t immuniz e plaintiff

s fromth e risk

o f futur e suits , nor

foreclos e th e possibilit

y tha t defendants wil l recommenc e th e offendin g conduc t an d invit e asecond action . Yet , plaintiff s ar e no t require d to obtai n preclusiv e judgment s a s aconditio n of awardin g fees . Circuit court s confe

r prevailin g part

y statu s no t

becaus e plaintiff

s obtai n apreclusiv e final judgment

on th e merits , but , rather , becaus e they obtai n ajudiciall y sanctioned chang e i n the parties ' lega

l relationship fo

r th e pertinen t

tim e perio d durin g the pendin g action . D . Th e FAA' s Interpretatio n o t Buckhanno n i s Unreasonabl e an d Overreaching . A pe r s e rul e requirin g tha

t EAJ A applicant s mus t

obtai n immunit

y fromfutur

e enforcemen

t actio n by th e FAA , notwithstandin g amateria l alteratio n o f

th e parties ' lega

l relationshi p i n th e pendin g action , i s tantamoun t t o requirin g th e applicant s t o first obtain a n enforceable judgment

on th e merits . Suc

h acategorica

l rule , however , ha s bee

n expressl y rejecte d b y severa

l circui t courts . A rul e tha

t allow s th e FA

A t o depriv e a

n EAJ A applican

t o f prevailin g part

y statu s by avoluntarily withdrawa l o f it s actio n i

n 1 5orde

r to avoi d judicial dismissal , fundamentall y undermine s Buckhannon , which rejected th e ide atha

t partie s through their

ow n action s coul d confe

r prevailin g part

y status . I n essence , thi s woul d permit th e FA A to unilaterally nullif

y amateria

l alteratio n of

the parties ' lega

l relationship by withdrawin g it s claim s i n th e fac e o f imminen t judicia l action , an d t o aimu l th e impac t

o f judicial order s by dismissin g a t th e elevent

h hour . I t i s difficul t to imagine tha

t th e Suprem

e Cour t intende d such aresult . Accordingly , th e Honorabl e La w Judg e shoul d grant

th e AppUcation fo

r fee s and expense s imde

r th e EAJA . E . A Voluntar y Dismissa l With Prejudic e i s aComplet e Adjudicatio n O f th e Claims . In th e present

case , th e FAA' s voluntar

y withdrawa

l i s analogou s t o avoluntar y dismissa l b y aplaintif

f unde r th e Federa

l Rule s of Civi l Procedure . Sinc e avoluntar y dismissa l wit h prejudic e "i s acomplet

e adjudication o f

th e claim s and aba

r to afurthe r action on the

m... , it ha s bee n hel d tha t [th e tria l court] ha s n o discretio n to refus e suc h adismissa l an d cannot forc e a n unwillin g plaintif

f to g o to trial. " See Zhengzho u Harmoni Spic e Co. , Ltd. , etal . v. United States , etal , 201 0 Ct . hiti . Trade Lexi s 7 ; SLI P OP . 2010-0 8 (citm

g 9 Wrigh t & Miller , Federa

l Practic e and Procedure : Civi l 3 d §263 4 a t 551) .Othe r federa l circui t court s hav e foun

d dismissa l wit h prejudic e sufficien

t t o awar d attorne y fees . See , e.g. , RivieraDistrib. , Ina . v. Jones , 51 7 F.3 d 92 6 (7 * Cir . 2008 ) (dismissa l wit h prejudic e satisfie s Buckhannon , eve n absen t adjudicatio n o f

merits) ; see also . Mile s v . California , 32 9 F.3 d 986,98 9 (9 * Cir . 2003 ) (dismissa l without prejudic e sufficien t wher e federa l claimforeclosed) . I

n th e presen

t case , th e FAA' s voluntar

y

1 6withdrawa l wa s "conclusiv e in practica l effect " sinc e th e Agenc y wa s unabl e to bring furthe r suit agains t Empir e Airways , concerning th e sam e allege d regulator

y violations . Th e FA A i s no w attemptin g to stretc h Buckhannon to o fa r b y suggestin g th e propositio n tha

t abandone d claim s ca

n b e resurrecte d in subsequen t suit s by filing a voluntar y dismissa l in th e first

action . Eve

n wher e asecond actio n i s no t

barre d by re s judicata , th e FAA' s expres s abandonmen t o f charges , which i s obtaine d a s adirec t result o f th e la w judge' s order

terminatin g th e proceedin g wit h prejudice , materiall y alter s th e parties ' lega

l relationship durin g th e pending action ,

CONCLUSIO N Fo r th e foregoing reasons . Applicant , Empir e Airway s respectfully reques t tha t the Honorable Administrativ e La w Judg e gran

t th e Applicatio n fo

r attorney' s fee s an

d othe r expense s pursuan

t to th e EAJA , NE T WORT H STATEMEN T Applican t hereb y supplement s it s Applicatio n fo r fee s and expense s wit

h th e Ne t Wort h Statemen

t attache d heret

o a s Exhibit

5 , 

### REQUES T FO R FURTHE R PROCEEDING S Pursuan t to §14,2 6 of

th e Procedura

l Rule s (1 4 C.F.R . Par

t 14) , Applican

t hereby respectfull y request s tha

t th e Honorabl e Administrativ e La w Judg e order

furthe r proceedings , suc

h a s a n informa l conference , ora

l argument , additiona

l writte n submissions , or

a n evidentiar

y hearing , i f

necessar y fo r aful l and fai r resolutio n o f

th e issue s arisin g fromth e applicatio n an d conducted a s promptl

y a s possible .

1 7TOTA L FEE S AN D EXPENSE S SOUGH T Attorneys ' fee s an

d expense s sough

t to dat e in th e amoun

t o f $4,980.00. ^ ANALYSI S O

F ATTORNE

Y FEE S AN

D EXPENSE S INCURRE

D A S O F SEPTEMBE

R20,2010 , REQUIRE

D TO REPL

Y T O TH E ADMINISTRATOR' S ANSWE RTO APPLICATION FO RATTORNEY' S FEE S AN D COST S PURSUAN

T T O TH E EQUA L ACCES S TO JUSTICE ACT (EAJA) AN D REQUES T FOR FURTHE RPROCEEDINGS . Descriptio n Legal Service s Descriptio n o

f work : Amoun t

12. 3 EAJ A Rat e

$12 5 Tota l

$1,537.5 0

9/16/201 0 - Review FA

A Answe r to EAJ A Application ; Researc h Law ; Review file. Review NTS B an

d FA A Rule s o f

Practice , Time : 2, 8 9/19/201 0 - Review FA

A Answe r to EAJ A Application ; Research Law ; Review file. Begin Draf

t Reply , Time : 5, 3 hrs , 9/20/201 0 - Review FA

A Answe r to EAJ A Application ; Researc h Law ; Review file; Review an

d Revis e Reply , Review NTS B and FA A Rule s o f

Practice , Time : 4, 2 Expense s $103.0 5 Copies ; fax ; FEDE

X an d postage . Tota l fee s an d expense s a s o f Septembe r

20,2010 : $6,621.0 0 1 hereb y certif

y unde r penalt y o f perjur y tha t th e informatio n provide d i n thi s applicatio n i s tru e an

d correct .

* Amoun t include s fee s an d expense s incurre d t o Defen d thi s actio n an d t o prepar e th e EAJ A Application

. 1 8Dated : Septembe r 20 , 201 0 submitted . LINTON , ESQ , f Aviatip d La

w Fir m rc h Court , Suit

e 45 0 RocMlle , M

D 2085 0 Tel : 301-294-855 0 Fax : 301-294-252 5 Attorney s fo

r Applicant

1 9i CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E I hereby certif

y tha t I hav e thi s dat

e served b y regula

r U.S , mail , postag e prepaid , a n origina l and one (1 ) copy o f

th e foregoin

g Applicant' s Reply t o th e Agency' s Answe r t o Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Act

Applicatio n addresse d to : Attention : Hearing Docke

t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S,W, Roo m924 A Washington , D.C . 2059 1 And , further , tha

t I hav e thi s date served b y FEDEX , postag e prepaid , acopy o f th e foregoin g Applicant' s Repl

y t o th e Agency' s Answe

r t o Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Act Applicatio n addressed to : Honorable Isaa

c D , Benkin Offic e of Hearings , M-20 Roo m541 1 U.S , Departmen

t o f Transportatio n 40 0 Seventii Street , S.W . Washington , DC 2059 0 Tel : (202 ) 366-213 2 Fax : (202 ) 366-753 6 And , further , tha

t I hav e thi s dat

e served b y FEDEX , postag e prepaid , acopy o f th e foregoin g Applicant' s Repl

y t o th e Agency' s Answe

r t o Equa l Acces s to Justic e Act Application addresse d to : Zachar y M . Berman , Esq . Offic e o f Assistan t Chie f Counse l FA A Easter n Region , AEA- 7 1 Aviatio n Plaza , Roo

m56 1 Jamaica , N

Y 1143 4 Tel : 718-553-325 8 Fax:718-995-569 9 Dated : Septembe

r 20,201 0 GR^(^R>^ . WINTON , ESQ .

Th e Aviatio n La

w Fir m On e Research Court , Suit

e 45 0 Rockville,M D 2085 0 Tel : (301 ) 294-855 0 Fax : (301 ) 294-252 5 Greg@AviationLawExperts.co m 2 0

# EXHIBIT 1Gre g Winto n From : Sent : To : Co : Subject : j.zaremba@empireairways.co m Tuesday , Ma y 18 , 201 0 8:5 5 P M zachary.berman@faa.go v Gre g Winto n Ne w counse l
T o Offic e o f th e Easter n Regiona l Counse l (FAA ) 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 Dea r M r Berman , Pleas e b e advise d tha t a s o f 5/1/201 0 Mr . Gre g Winto n ha s bee n retaine d b yEmpir e a s genera l counsel.H e wil l b e representin g Empir e i n an yexistin g an d i n al l futur e matter s concernin g th e FA A than k yo u fo r you r consideratio n Joh n Zaremb aPag e 1 o f 1 Gre g Winto n From : zachary.berman@faa.go v Sent : Wednesday , May 26 , 201 0 11:5 5 A M To : j.zaremba@empireairways.co m Cc : Gre g Winto n Subject : Re : Ne w counse l I stil l nee d a lette rsayin g tha t Mr . Cassoiar o i s n o longe rrepresentin g you-otherwise , I hav e t o assum e tha t h e i s stil l representin g you . Zachary M . Berma n Attorne y Offic e o f th e Easter n Regiona l Counse l (FAA ) 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 Phone : (718)553-325 8 Telefax : (718)995-569 9

From : j.zaremba@empireairways.co m To ; Zachar y Berman/AEA/FAA@FA A Cc : Gre g Winto n <greg@aviationlawexperts.com > Date : 05/18/201 0 08:5 5 P M Subject : ^ ^ """"^^ ^

T o Offic e o f th e Easter n Regiona l Counse l (FAA ) 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 Dea r M r Berman , Pleas e b e advise d tha t a s o f 5/1/201 0 Mr . Gre g Winto n ha s bee n retaine d b yEmpir e a s genera l counsel.H e wil l b e representin g Empir e i n an yexistin g an d i n al l futur e matter s concernin g th e FA A than k yo u fo r you r consideratio n Joh n Zaremb a

9/20/201 0Gre g Winto n From : j.zaremba@empireairways.co m Sent : Wednesday , Ma y 26 , 201 0 2:1 4 P M To : zachary.berman@faa.go v Cc : greg@aviationlawexperts.co m Subject : Re : Ne w counse l I wil l sen d i t a s soo n a s I arriv e bac k a t th e offic e .Unfortunatel y tha t wil l no t b e unti l Friday . I n th e mea n tim e pleas e allo w M r Winto n t o ac t a s m ycounsel . regard s Joh n Zaremb a Quotin g zachary.berman@faa.gov : > Ca n I jus t hav e a signe d lette r w/letterhea d again ? > > > Zachar yM . Berma n > Attorne y > Offic e o f th e Easter n Regiona l Counse l (FAA ) > 1 Aviatio n Plaz a > Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 > Phone : (718)553-325 8 > Telefax : (718)995-569 9 > > > > > > From : > j.zaremba@empireairways.co m > > To : > Zachar yBerman/AEA/FAA@FAA > Cc : > greg@aviationlawexperts.co m > Date : > 05/26/201 0 12:0 4 P M > Subject : > Re : Ne w counse l > > > > Mr . Berman , > > Mr . Cassoiar o > > i s n o longe r representin g Empir e i n an ymatte r concernin g th e FA Ao r > an yothe r matte r . M ycounse l i s Gre g Winto n . Yo u ma yconside r thi s > a n officia l documen t reflectin g th e change . > > than k yo u fo r consideratio n > Joh n Zaremb a > > Quotin g zachary.berman@faa.gov : > » I stil l nee d a lette r sayin g tha t Mr . Cassoiar o i s n o longe r > representin g > > you-otherwise , I hav e t o assum e tha t h e i s stil l representin g you . > > > > Zachar yM . Berma n 1> > Attorne y > > Offic e o f th e Easter n Regiona l Counse l (FAA ) > > 1 Aviatio n Plaz a > > Jamaica , NY 1143 4 » Phone : (718)553-325 8 » Telefax : (718)995-569 9 > > > > > > > > > > > > From : > > j.zaremba@empireairways.co m > > > > To : > > Zachar yBerman/AEA/FAA@FAA > > Cc : > > Gre g Winto n <greg@aviationlawexperts.com > » Date : » 05/18/201 0 08:5 5 P M > > Subject : > > Ne w counse l » » > > > > T o > > > > Offic e o f th e Easter n Regiona l Counse l (FAA ) > > 1 Aviatio n Plaz a » Jamaica , NY 1143 4 > > > > Dea r M r Berman , > > > > Pleas e b e advise d tha t a s o f 5/1/201 0 Mr . Gre g Winto n ha s bee n > > retaine d b yEmpir e a s genera l counsel.H e wil l b e representin g Empir e > > i n an yexistin g an d i n al l futur e matter s concernin g th e FA A > > > > than k yo u fo r you r consideratio n > > > > Joh n Zaremb a > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Pag e 1 o f 1 Gre g Winto n From : zachary.berman@faa.go v Sent : Friday , May 21 , 201 0 10:5 1 A M To : j.zaremba@empireairways.co m Cc : Gre g Winto n Subject : Re : Ne w counse l Ca n I pleas e hav e a signe d lette rw/ Empir e Airway s letterhea d t o tha t effect ? Than k you . Zachary M . Berma n Attorne y Offic e o f th e Easter n Regiona l Counse l (FAA ) 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 Phone : (718)553-325 8 Telefax : (718)995-569 9

From : j.zaremba@empireairways.co m To : Zachar y Berman/AEA/FAA@FA A Cc : Gre g Winto n <greg@aviationlawexperts.com > Dale : 05/18/201 0 08:5 5 P M Subject : Ne w counse l

T o Offic e o f th e Easter n Regiona l Counse l (FAA ) 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , NY 1143 4 Dea r M r Berman , Pleas e b e advise d tha t a s o f 5/1/201 0 Mr . Gre g Winto n ha s bee n retaine d byEmpir e a s genera l counsel.H e wil l b e representin g Empir e i n an yexistin g an d i n al l futur e matter s concernin g th e FA A than k yo u fo r you r consideratio n Joh n Zaremb a

9/20/201 0

# EXHIBI T 2Gre g Winto n From : Sent : To : Cc : Subject : j.zaremba@empireairways.co m Monday , May 24 , 201 0 5:4 6 P M zachary.berman@faa.go v Gre g Winto n Ne w Counse l

chang e o f lounsel.pd f (1 0 KB ; Dea r M r Berman , a s pe r you r reques t attache d pleas e fin e reques t o n ou r stationar y than k yo u J . Zaremb a

# ^^ A j4&u»a^ A

Ma y 24,201 0 Office o f the Easter n Regiona l Counse l (FAA) 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N

Y 1143 4 Dea r M r Bennan , Pleas e b e advise d tha

t a s o f 5/1/201 0 Mr . Gre g Winto n ha s been retaine d b y Empir e a s genera

l counsel . He wil l b e representin g Empire in an y existin g an

d i n all futur

e matter s concernin g th e FA A than k yo u fo r you r consideratio n Joh n Zaremb a

l^ta u 109 . •7f4uif«^S . 1^(imUiefiii^m t 7>i-> e 631

- 777-251 4 ?* r

63l'694-OI7 e

# EXHIBIT 3Pag e 1 o f 1 Gre g Winto n From : David.Benkin@dot.go v Sent : Monday , Jul y 26 , 201 0 9:5 8 A M To : greg@aviationlawexperts.com Subject : RE : I n th e Matte ro f Empir e Airway s DM S NO . FAA-2010-019 1 Dea rMr . Winton ; Yo u nee d t o rea d th e order s an d notice s I issu e i n you rcases . From : Gre g Winto n [mailto:greg@aviationlawexperts.com ] Sent : Friday , Jul y 23 , 201 0 5:5 9 PM To : Benkin , Davi d (OST ) Cc : zachary.berman@faa.go v Subject : I n th e Matte ro f Empir e Airway s DM S NO . FAA-2010-019 1 Dea rHonorabl e Judg e Benkin : A s yo u ma y recall , thi s offic e represent s Respondent , Empir e Ain^/ays , concernin g th e above reference d matter . O n Jul y 6 , 2010 , Responden t file d th e attache d Unoppose d Motio n fo r Decision . Th e motio n i s no w rip e fo rdisposition . I f yo u hav e an y questions , pleas e d o no t hesitat e t o contac t me . Than k yo u fo ryou rattentio n t o thi s matter . Respectfull y submitted . Gregory S . Winton , Esq . Th e Aviatio n La w Fir m 33 0 Aviatio n Wa y 2n d Floo r Frederick , M D 2170 1 mailto:Greg@AviationLawExperts.co m Tol l free : 1-877-4-AI R LA W Local : (301 ) 294-855 0 Cell : (301 ) 529-566 0 Fax:(301)294-252 5

9/20/201 0

# EXHIBI T 407/2G/201 0 09:3 1 FA X 202483514 2 p^ ^ 11001/00 3



### SERVE D JUN E 23,201 0 U.S . DEPARTNfEN

T O F TRANSPORTATION OFFIC E OF HEARING S WASHINGTON . D.C . ,^ ^ ,^ ^ ^,,,. . ,.,- . IN TH E MA'ITEROF EMPIR E AIRWAYS , Responden

t FA A DOCKE

T NO . CP10EA000 2 (Civi l Penalt

y Proceeding ) DM S NO . FAA-2010-019 1 ADMINISTRATIV E LA

W JUDGE' S ORDE RDISMISSIN G PROCEEDIN G AND CANCELLIN G HEARIN G Counsel fo

r th e Complainan

t ha s file d amotio n to withdra

w th e complain t "withou t prejudice. " H

e say s tha t th e agenc y ha s bee

n informed tha t th e part y name d a s Responden

t i n th e complaint

di d no t operat e an d maintain th e aircraf

t in question . H e als o say s tha t th e purpos e o f

th e withdrawa l o f th e complaint

i s to allo w the Federa

l Aviatio n Administratio n t o initiat e th e cas e ane

w agains t anothe r party . I canno t an d do no t promis e tha

t th e Complainant' s cas e agains t a thir d part y ( acas e I do no t

hav e befor

e me ) wil l no t

b e prejudice d b y th e fact tha t the Complainan

t file d thi s cas e agains t

Empire Airways . Th e cas e agains t th e thir d part y doe s no t exis t and , i n an y event , i s no t

assigne d t o me , If , fo r example , th e statut

e o f limitation s o

n prosecutio n o f

th e third part

y expire d whil e thi s cas e wa s befor e me , dismissa

l o f thi s cas e ma

y b e sai d t o "prejudice " th e interest s o f th e FAA . Ther

e i s nothin g I ca

n do about that , an d counsel fo

r th e FA A wil l jus t hav e to tak

e hi s chances . Al l tha t I ca n do no w i s t o follow 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 wit

h prejudice . I now do so . • - '*''! i ,/' ^ '•'".• . '• ' ^ '07/2G/201 0 09:3 1 FA X 202493514 2 FA A ©002/00 3



### Th e hearin g schedule d t o begi n on Augus t

12 , 201 0 i s cancelled , I T I S S O ORDERED .

Isaac D . Benkin Administrativ e La

w Judg e^ . , B1003/00 3

07/26/201 0 03:3 1 FA X 202493514 2 FA A

FA

A Docket No . CP10EA000 2 (Civi l Penalt

y Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L & ONE COP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W , Washington . DC 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docket Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building

- Suit

e 2W1000 ' ON E COP Y Charle s J . Casolaro , Respondent' s Counsel Casolar o Sussman , LL

P 105 0 Frankli n Avenue , Suit e 40 2 Garde n City , M Y 1153 0 TEL : 516-248-139 9 FAX : 516-248-225 7 Zachar y M . Bennan , Complainani ' s Counsel Offic e o f th e Regiona

l Counsel Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 1 Aviatio n Plax a Jamaica , NY 1143 4 TEL : 718-553-325 8 FAX : 718-995-569 9 Th e Honorabl e Isaa

c D . Benkin , AdminLstraliv e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2

0 U.S . Departmen

t o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jersey Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Ground Floor , RoomE12-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorne

y 202-366-043 7 Lega l Assistant 202-366-213 2 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y US . Mail , b'o r servic e i n perso n o r

b y expedite dcourier , us e th e following address ; Federa l Aviatio n Administrarion , 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S-W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2WI000 , Waslurtgton , D C 20391 ; Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerfc , AGCM30 .202366753 6 Lin e 10STE12-12 8 10:06:05a.m . 07-26-201 0 1/ 4 

### SERVE D JUL Y 1,201 0 U.S . DEPARTMEN

T OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . I N TH E MATTE RO F EMPIR E AIRWAYS , Responden

t FA A DOCBCE

T NO . CPI0EA000 2 (Civi l Penalt

y Proceeding ) DM S NO . FAA-2010-019 1 ADMINISTRATIV E LA

W JUDGE' S ORDE RO N NOTIC E O F WITHDRAWA L O F COMPLAIN T Counsel fo r th e FA A ha s sent m e asecond notic e that

it i s withdrawin g it s complaint . In a n orde r served o n Jun e 23,2010, 1 grante d hi s first motio n to withdra

w th e complain

t and , pursuant

t o § 13.21 5 o f

th e Rule s ofPractice , I dismisse d thi s proceeding . Onc e i s enough . I canno t now ac t on th e lates t

notic e becaus e there i s n o longe r apendin g proceedin g i n thi s docke

t - a t leas t no t one tha t i s assigne d t o me . S o I a mherewit h dismissin g th e notic e o f

withdrawa

l o f th e complain

t without action . n I S S O ORDERED .

' Isaa(^D . Benki n Administrativ e La

w Judg e202366753 6 Lin e 10STE12-12 8 10:06:2 7 a.m . 07-26-201 0 2/ 4 ( : 

### SERVED JUL Y 7,201 0 U.S . DEPARTMEN

T OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE O

F HEARINGS WASHINGTON , D.C . IN TH E MATTE ROF EMPIR E AIRWAYS , Responden

t FA A DOCKE

T NO . CP10EA000 2 (Civi l Penalt

y Proceeding ) DM S NO . FAA-2010-019 1 ADMINISTRATIV E LA

W JUDGE' S ORDE R DISMISSIN G MOTIO N I hav e receive d fromcounsel fo r th e erstwhil e Responden

t amotio n fo r decision , entitle d "Unoppose d Motio n fo r Decision, " in whic h h e proclaim s tha

t becaus e th e Federa

l Aviatio n Administratio n di d no t file a forma l oppositio n t o hi s prio r

motio n fo r decision , hi s client

i s entitle d t o a judgmen t o n th e merit s now . Ther e i s agoo d reaso n wh

y th e FA A di d no t oppos e th e forme

r Respondent' s motio n fo

r decision . Befor

e tha t motio n wa s filed, counse l fo r th e FA A withdre w th e complaint , A^^ereupon , actin g pursuant

t o §13.215 , th e administrativ e la

w judg e dismisse d th e proceedin g wit h prejudice . Hence , amotio n fo

r decisio n wil l no t

lie , an d nee d no t

b e th e subject o f arespons e in opposition , no t necessarily becaus e ther

e i s meri t in th e motio n fo r decisio n bu t

becaus e there i s n o case .202366753 6 Line10STE12-12 8 10:06:5 2 a.m . 07-26-201 0 3/ 4



### Becaus e there i s n o cas e and , in an y event , n o cas e i s pendin g befor e me , I no w dismis s th e secon d motio n o f Respondent' s counsel without action . / Isaa c D . Benkin Administrativ e La

w Judg e202366753 6 Lin e 10STE12-12 8 10:07:11a.m . 07-26-201 0 4/ 4



# rC FA A Docket No . CP10EA000 2 (Civi l Penalt

y Action ) SERVIC E LIS T

• > ORIGINA L & ONE COP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 800 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearing Docket Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wright Building—Suit

e 2W1000 ' ON E COP Y Chaxki S J . CBSOISTO , Respondent' s Counsel Casolar o Sussman , LLP

105 0 Franklin Avenue , Suit e 40 2 Garde n City , NY 1153 0 TEL : 516-248-139 9 ' FAX : 516-248-225 7 Zachar y M . Berman , Complainant' s Counsel Offic e o f th e Regiona

l Counsel Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 TEL : 718-553-325 8 FAX : 718-995-569 9 The Honorabl e Isaa

c D . Benkin , Administrativ e La w Judg e OfiSc e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen

t o f Transportatio n 120 0 New Jersey Avenue , S.E , Eas t Building Ground Floor , RoomE12-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorney 202-366-043 7 Lega l Assistan t 202-366-213 2 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S . Mail . Fo r servic e i n perso n o r by expedite d courier , us e th e following address : Federa l Aviation Administration , 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S . W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D C 20591 ; Attention ; Hearin g Docket Clerk , AGC-430 .

# EXHIBI T 5U . S . DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . I N TH E MATTE RO F EMPIR E AIRWAY S Responden t FA A DOCKE T NO . CP10EA000 2 (Civi l Penalty Proceeding ) DM S NO . FAA-2010-019 1 HONORABL E ISAA C D . BENKI N ADMINISTRATIV E LA W JUDG E SUPPLEMENTA L NE T WORT H INFORMATIO N PURSUAN T T O 1 4 C.F.R . § 14.1 1 COME S NOW , Applicant , Empir e Airways , b y an d throug h Joh n Zaremba , unde r penalty o f perjury , pursuan t

t o 1 4 C.F.R . §14.11 , an d hereb y supplement s th e Applicatio n fo r a n awar d o f

attorne y fee s an d othe r

expense s pursuan t

t o th e Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Ac t (EAJA) . A t

al l time s relevan t

herein , I was an d stil l amth e Presiden t o f Empir e Airways . I n support

o f thi s supplementa l ne t

wort h statement , I stat e th e following : I . Th e ne t

wort h o f th e Applican t

an d an y affiliates whe n th e proceedin g wa s initiated : O n February 16 , 2010 , th e dat e o n whic h th e Complain t was filed i n thi s matter . Applican t was acorporatio n (with n o affiliates ) wit h ane t worth o f not mor e tha n $ 7 millio n an d no t

mor e tha n 50 0 employees . Specifically , Applicant' s ne t worth £i s o f February 16 , 2010 , was (-$900,000) .II . Ful l disclosur e o f th e Applicant' s asset s an d liabilities : A s o f Februar y 16,2010 , Applicant' s asset s an d liabilitie s wer e a s follows : ASSETS : $1,300,000.0 0 LIABILITIES : $2,100,000.0 0 TOTA L EQUITY : $ (-90C.;)00.00 ) III . Betwee n Februar y 16,2009 , an d Februar y 16,2010 , n o transfe r o f asset s o r obligation s incurre d b y th e Applican t reduce d th e ne t

wortil i o f th e Applican t belo w th e applicabl e ne t wort h ceiling . Dated : July/^b , 201 0 

# X

' Jop n Zaremb a resident Empir e Airway s