### UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON DC

) 

### PRO-FLIGHT AVIATION, INC., ) Complainant ) ) 

### v. ) ) 

### CITY OF RENTON, ) Respondent ) FAA Docket No. 16-15-03

ORDER
On April17, the Respondent, the city ofRenton, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking dismissal ofthe entire complaint. The Complainant, Pro-Flight Aviation, Inc. (PFA) filed an Answer to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment on June 4, 2015. The Respondent filed a Motion for Leave to File Reply onJune 12,2015 and the Complainant filed an Opposition to that motion onJune 24, 2015.
The Respondent asserts that summaryjudgment and dismissal ofthe Complaint are appropriate because the material facts, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the Complainant, should be decided in favor ofthe Respondent as a matter oflaw. The Respondent asserts that the Complainant has not provided sufficient documentary or other evidence to support its Complaint. The Respondent contends that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) only looks for current compliance, and that the Respondent has taken steps to accommodate the Complainant that would constitute a cure, ifthere had been any past violations.
The Complainant contends that it alleged and provided reliable and probative evidence proving Respondent's grant assurance violations. The Complainant also contends that the Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied because the Respondent cannot demonstrate that there is no genuine issue ofmaterial fact for adjudication. 

### Analysis
A motion to dismiss must show: ( 1) the complaint appears to be outside ofthe Administrator's jurisdiction; (2) the complaint on its face does not state a claim that warrants an investigation or further action by FAA; or (3) the complainant lacks standing. 14 CFR 

### § 16.26(b)(l) A motion for summaryjudgment must show that there is no genuine issue ofmaterial fact for adjudication, and that the complaint , when viewed in the light most favorable to the complainant, should be adjudicated in favor ofthe respondent as a matter oflaw. 14 CFR 

### § 16.26(c)(l)Under 14 CFR § 16.23, a person directly and substantially affected by any alleged noncompliance may file a complaint with FAA. The compla int shall provide a concise but complete statement ofthe facts relied upon to substantiate each allegation. The complaint shall also describe how the things done or omitted by the respondent directly and substantially affected the complainant. 14 CFR 

### § 16.23(b)(3)-(4) 

### If , based on the pleadings, there appears to be a reasonable basis for further investigation, FAA will investigate the subject matter ofthe complaint. 14 CFR § l6.29(a)
The Complainant has alleged material facts with supporting documents sufficient to meetthe requirements under part 16. The Respondent failed to persuade there is no genuine issue as to whether Boeing's use under its lease is an aeronautical use as determined by FAA. The Respondent also failed to persuade there is no genuine issue as to whether the disputed parcels (as opposed to otherparcels made available to the Complainant) are the only airport property available to meet the public's interest and aeronautical needs ofthe airport. These disputed facts are integral to a finding ofwhether the Respondent is in compliance with its Grant Assurances. The FAA finds the facts as presented warrant furtherreview under the part 16

**proc~ss.** The Director has reviewed all the submissions and has concluded that there are genuine issues of material fact. The issues include but are not limited to the Respondent's compliance with Grant Assurance 5, 

### PreservingRights andPower , Grant Assurance 22, 

### Economic Nondiscrimination, Grant Assurance 23, 

### Exclusive Rights, Grant Assurance 24, 

### Fee andRentalStructure, and Grant Assurance 29,

### AirportLayoutPlan.
ACCORDINGLY, itis ordered that: Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismissal ofthe Complaint is DENIED. Additionally, Respondent's Motion for Leave to File Reply is DENIED.
The Respondent , shall, byJuly 27, 2015, file its Answertothe Complaint.

Randall S. Fiertz Director, Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 17, 2015 , I caused to be emailed and placed inthe United States mail (first class, postage paid) or personally delivered a true copy ofthe foregoing ORDER addressed to: Complainant
Bernard A. Paholke Vice President Pro-Flight Aviation, Inc. 750 W. Perimeter Rd. Unit 1 Renton, WA 98057 proflightaviationinc@yahoo.com
Counsel for Respondent
Zanetta 

### L. Fontes Senior Assistant City Attorney City OfRenton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 zfontes@rentonwa.gov
Hand-Delivered to:
FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket (AGC

-600) FAA Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis (A CO-l00)