n/15/201 1 1G-50 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ OMS @]001/00a 

'••r>r/u'T'p^-^^^^^^ DErARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

---•'-• ^•- 1*^!^!:^ OFFIC E O F HEARING S O C l .? '^'^'^ H , ""' 

.-n o WASHINGTON, DC TT \ T " 

^:u!l INQV i'n A " : i 1 • •• * 

In the Matter of: : t /OT 

FAA DOCKET NO. TT .j n ^ r*- ^ - ^- " -= 

Lightning Aircraft Corporation, T *- A\ i \ I f V ^sj ^..• j^ ; ^ , ^^ ,^:2 

Larry Robert Buchaiinu, President 

CaseNo-20lOWP230042 

Respondent 

^0/1- iJ^i 

TO' The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder. Chief Administrative Law Judge, and Respondent, 

through counsel. 

>fOTfOiV IQ OrSMISS REQUEST FOR A irEAlUNG 

COMES NOW, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), pursuant to Rule 

13.2I8(0(2Xi) of the Rules of Practice In FAA Civil Penalr>' Actions, (14 C.F.R., 

§ 13.2l8(f)(2Xi))-and hereby files, in lieu of a complaint, this motion to dismiss Lightning 

Aircraft Corporation's request for a hearing. In support of this Motion, Complainant states as 

follows: 

1. On December 10, 2010, the FAA issued the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty in this 

case. Enclosed with ihc Notice, the FAA provided a copy of Section 13.16 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (14. C.F.R., § 13.16). 

2. On May 5, 2011, the FAA issued the Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty m this 

case. The May 5, 2011 Final Notice was served upon Charles Mathews, counsel tor 

Lightning Aircraft Corporation by same day facsimile and by regular US mail and 

was ser\'ed upon Lightning Aircraft Corporation, through its president.. Larry Robert 

Buchanan, by cenified and regular US mail: Larry Robert Buchanan having received 

the certified mail onMay 9-201L The Final Notice included a description of the 

procedure to request a hearing; advising that a request for a hearing must be made on 

or before 15 days aflcr receipt of the Final Notice. 
1/15/2011 1G:50 FAX 2024335142 FAA ^ DMS 1^1002/004 

3. In accordance with 14C.F.R., § 13.16(.g)(2)(ii)), no later than 15 days after receipt of 

the fmal notice of proposed civil penalty, the person charged with a violation shall 

request a hearing. Lightning Aircraft Corporation did noi request a hearing within 

that time. 

4. In accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 13.16(d)(2), an order assessingcivil penalty may be 

issued If a person charged with a violation does not request a hearing under 

§ 13.16('g)(2Xii) wiihin 15 daysafter receipt of a fmal notice of proposed civil 

penalty. 

5. On June 21 , 2011, the FAA issued the Order Assessing Civil Penalty in this case. 

(The June 21, 2011 Order Assessing Civil Penalty was served upon Charles 

Malhcw.?, counsel for Lightning Aircraft Corporation by same day facsimile and by 

regular US mail and was served upon Lightning Aircraft Corporation, through its 

pre.'^ident, Larry Robert Buchanan, by certified and regular US mail: Larr>' Robert 

Ruchanan having received the certified mail on June 23. 2011.) 

6. On .August 31, 201 I, Lightning AircrHO.Corporation through irs counsel. Charles 

Mathews, filed a written request for a hearing. 

7. Lightning Aircraft Corporation file<l its request for a hearing more thaii 3 months 

after receiving the Final Notice of Propnscd Civil Penalt>' (and more than 2 months 

after receiving the Order Assessing Civil Penalty). 

8. Good cause does not exist for Lightning Aircraft Corporation's failure to submit a 

timely request for hearing. Generally, a finding of good cause requires a showing 

that circumstances beyond a party's control prevented that party from knowing of the 

matter requiring a timely response and/or from acting upon it within the prescribed 

time limit, despite the exercise of due diligence. Here, Lightning Aircraft 

Corporation and its counsel were clearly informed in the May 5, 2011 Final Notice of 
11/15/201 1 1G:50 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ QMS 2)003/00 4 

Proposed Civil Penalty that Lightning Aircraft Corporation was required to submit a 

request for a hearing on or before 15 days from receipt of the Final Notice of 

Proposed Civil Penalty'. The circumstances ciicd by counsel as "inadvertence" and 

"excusable neglect" for the 3-month delay in filing the request for a hearing, in 

reality, reflect a lack of diligence. 

WHF.RKFORE, the FAA respectfully requests that the Administrative Law Judge issue 

an Order dismissing Lightning Aircraft Corporation's request for a hearing. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Western-Pacific Region 

Lawndale. California 

NAOMI TSUDA 

Regional Counsel 

/; 

Bv: 

IjTsa J. Toscano 

Attorney 

Dated: September 9, 2011 
11/15/201 1 16:50 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ OMS ©004/00 4 

FAA DOCKET NO. 

CascNo. 20I0WP230042 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICF. 

T hereby certify thai on this date I havt placed in the United States mail, postage prepaid, 

the executed original and one copy of the MOTION TO DISMISS REQUEST FOR HtARING, 

addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

*100 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washingion, DC 20?>9l 

and a true copy to: 

Courtesy tacsimile 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Adminisnalive Law Judge 

U-S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings. M-20 

East Building Ground Floor. Room El 2-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

(202) 366-7536 

Coujlcsv facsimile 

Charles Mathews, Esq. 

.leffrey Nakao, Esq. 

Aiiorneys for Lightning Aircraft Corporation 

2596 Mission Street. Suite 20 ^ 

San Marino, C A 91108 

(026; 683-8295 

Dated: SEP 0 9 zor 

Jefferey Kafiiberg 

Legal Technician 

Office of tiie Regional Counsel 

Western-Pacific Reeion