UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIC 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. AIRPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL 

LAW, AGC-600 

J&B ENTERPRISES, INC., 

d/b/a/ RHYTHM SHINE, 

Complainant, 

V. 

METROPOLITAN NASHVILLE AIRPORT 

AUTHORITY, 

Respondent. 

Docket No.: 16-08-07 

C O 

^—3_ . 

COMPLAINANT J&B ENTERPRISES' OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION 

FOR IMMEDIATE STAY AND AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY 

Complainant J&B Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a/ Rhythm Shine (hereafter "Complainant" or 

"J&B"), by its counsel, hereby opposes the motion of Respondent, Metropolitan Nashville 

Airport Authority ("MNAA") for an immediate stay and an extension of time to file its reply in 

this appeal. MNAA's Motion is only the first of what it describes as a series of forthcoming 

motions which appear designed only to needlessly delay the prompt disposition of this appeal. 

MNAA's motion contains several requests on several differing bases, each of which should be 

denied for the following reasons: 

Motion to Supplement 

1. MNAA's motion initially requests an extension of time to file its reply in the appeal until 

the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") decides the motion to supplement the record 

accompanying Complainant's appeal. MNAA Motion f 2. MNAA asserts that it wiU file an 

opposition to the motion to supplement, id. at 13, and then argues that "it would be unreasonable 

and prejudicial to require [it] to prepare its Reply" before it knows whether the will record will 

be supplemented with the additional documents. Id. at 15. The request for a stay and extension 

on this basis should be denied because none of the documents subject to the motion to 

C O 
supplement are essential to the issues raised in the i^peal, and there is no reason for the FAA to 

decide the motion to supplement the record separate from the appeal. 

2. First, if Respondent intends to dispute the issues on appeal, it will have to address those 

issues whether or not the documents are added to the record. Specifically, the Director's error in 

concluding that MNAA met its ACDBE goals through the Hudson-Olympic joint venture and 

acted in good faith in accepting the joint venture as compliant, without examining or making 

findings that they complied with all of the regulatory requirements and the FAA's Joint Venture 

Guidance is an issue arising from the Director's Determination and existing Administrative 

Record, whether or not the two appendices to the appeal are added to the record. Similarly, the 

errors of the Director's £)etermination in failing to recognize and apply the law regarding 

discrimination and retaliation arise fi"om the Determination itself, the complaint, and MNAA's 

response and declarations already in the Administrative Record, and do not rely on the 

documents attached to the motion to supplement. 

3. Second, the motion to supplement should be decided at the same time as the appeal, not 

separately. Indeed, that is what the FAA did in the very case cited in Respondent's motion. 

Boston Air Charter v. Norwood Airport Commission, FAA Docket No. 16-07-03 at 27-28 (Final 

Decision and Order, August 14, 2(X)8) (accepting seven supplemental exhibits submitted on 

appeal). Thus, Respondent can address any objections or any substantive responses it has to the 

documents in its Reply and the Assistant Administrator can consider decide the motion in 

connection with determining the appeal. No delay in disposing of the appeal is necessary or 

justified. 

Proposed Motion to Strike New Issues 

4. Respondent's motion also announces that it will file what it dubs a "Motion To Strike 

New Issues Raised On Appeal And Not Considered Below," MNAA Motion 14, and then argues 

2 
that it "cannot know how to respond appropriately" until this motion is decided and it knows "the 

issues to be considered on appeal." /t/., at 15. The request for a stay and extension on this basis 

should be denied because Respondent can present this argument in its Reply to the appeal, and 

there is no reason for the Respondent separately to file a motion to strike or, if separately filed, 

for the FAA to decide a motion to strike separate from the appeal. 

5. Respondent's motion for stay and extension does not identify any purported new issues 

or the basis on which it contends that the issue or issues were not presented in the record below. 

Assuming, however, that Respondent intends to attempt to do so, it can and should raise those 

arguments in its Reply to the appeal. Respondent has the opportunity in the Reply to make any 

and all £q)propriate arguments it desires to make and, thus, can make no claim of unfairness or 

prejudice. 

6. Respondent's motion, in effect, claims that before submitting its Reply, it is entitled to 

separate proceedings and a separate decision by the FAA on what issues are presented in an 

^peal. Respondent's motion cannot point to any basis for such a claim, and such a piecemeal 

and extended process of deciding appeals is contrary to the abbreviated and streamlined process 

outlined in 14 C.F.R. §§ 16.33(b),(c) and (d), the expedited procedures under Part 16 and the 

intent of the rules "to expedite substantially the handling and disposition of airport-related 

complaints." Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Proceedings, 61 FR 53998 

(October 16, 1996). Accordingly, no delay in disposing of the appeal is necessary or justified on 

this basis. 

Request for Immediate Stay 

7. Respondent's motion further requests an immediate stay of the time for its Reply during 

the pendency of this and the future motions it intends to file. It attempts to justify this request by 
analogizing it to the FAA's treatment of Complainant's motion for extension of time to appeal. 

The circumstances are not analogous and the request for a stay on that basis should be denied. 

8. In their motion for extension of time to appeal. Complainant's counsel requested an 

enlargement of time in which to appeal so he could familiarize himself with the record. The 

motion also requested that the FAA rule in an expedited fashion and prior to the expiration of the 

time for appeal, so that Complainants could appeal pro se even if the motion was denied. 

Because Respondent's counsel refused to respond in an expedited manner and prior to expiration 

of the time for appeal, the FAA notified the parties that the Director would not rule on the 

motion until a response was filed and that the appeal time was stayed while the motion was 

under consideration, such that it would not expire. See attachment to MNAA motion. 

Respondent's motion is in no way comparable: it's time to Reply will not run prior to the time 

for Complainant's response to this motion. Complainant is responding in an expedited manner 

and the FAA can dispose of the motion well in advance of the date Respondent's Reply is due. 

Treating motions filed in the course of an appeal as a stay of submission deadlines would permit 

parties unilaterally to obtain extensions merely by filing motions, including those without any 

merit, such as this one. 

WHEREFORE, Complainant J&B Enterprises, Inc., respectfiilly requests that MNAA's 

motion for an immediate stay and an extension of time to file its reply in this appeal be denied. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/Thomas J. Henderson 

Thomas J. Henderson 

Henderson Law Firm, PLLC 

1425 K Street, NW, Suite 350 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 587-5687 Telephone 

(202) 587-5601 Facsimile 

Counsel for Complainant 

J&B Enterprises, Inc. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Opposition to Respondent's Motion 

For hnmediate Stay And An Extension Of Time To File Reply on the following j)ersons at the 

following addresses, by first class mail this 17th day of July, 2009: 

Arthur P. Berg 

Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP 

641 Lexington Ave., Suite 1409 

New York, New York 10022 

Thomas R. Devine 

K^lan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP 

1001 Connecticut Ave., N.W. 

Suite 800 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

Lisa Reynolds 

Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP 

1675 Broadway, Suite 2300 

Denver, CO 80202 

Robert Watson 

MNAA 

One Terminal Ehive, Suite 501 

Nashville, TN 37214 

/s/ Thomas J. Henderson 

Thomas J. Henderson 

Counsel for Complainant 

J&B Enterprises, Inc.