UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATI

C FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N WASHINGTON , D.C . AIRPORT/ENVIRONMENTA L LAW , AGC-60 0 J& B ENTERPRISES , INC. , d/b/a / RHYTH M SHINE , Complainant , V . METROPOLITA

N NASHVILL

E AIRPOR

T AUTHORITY , Respondent . Docket No. : 16-08-07

C O ^—3_ . COMPLAINAN T J& B ENTERPRISES ' OPPOSITIO N T O RESPONDENT' S MOTIO N FO RIMMEDIAT E STA Y AND A N EXTENSIO N O F TIM E T O FIL E REPL Y Complainant

J& B Enterprises , Inc. , d/b/a / Rhyth mShin e (hereafte

r "Complainant " or "J&B") , b y it s counsel , hereb y oppose s th e motio n o f Respondent , Metropolita n Nashvill e Airpor t Authorit y ("MNAA" ) fo

r a n immediate sta

y anda n extensio n of

tim e t o file it s repl y i n thi s appeal . MNAA' s Motio n i s onl y th e first o f wha t i t describe s a s aserie s o f

forthcomin g motion s whic h appea

r designe donl y t o needlessl y dela y th e promp t

dispositio n of

thi s appeal . MNAA' s motio n contain s severa l request s o n severa

l differing bases , eac h of

whic h shoul db e denie dfo r th e followin g reasons : Motio n to Supplemen

t 1 . MNAA' s motio n initiall y request s a n extensio n of

tim e t o file it s reply i n th e appea l unti l th e Federa

l Aviatio n Administratio n ("FAA" ) decide s th e motio n t o supplemen t th e recor

d accompanyin g Complainant' s appeal . MNA A Motio n f

2 . MNA

A assert s tha

t i t wi U file a n oppositio n t o th e motio n t o supplement , id . at 13 , an dthe n argue s tha

t "i t woul db e unreasonabl e andprejudicia

l t o require [it ] t o prepare it s Reply " befor e i t know s whethe

r th e wil l recordwil l b e supplemente dwit

h th e additiona

l documents . Id . a

t 15 . Th e reques t

fo r asta y andextensio n on thi s basi s shoul db e denie dbecaus e non e of th e document s subjec t

t o th e motio n t o C Osupplemen t ar e essential t o th e issue s raise di n th e i^peal , andthere i s n o reaso n fo r th e FA A t o decide th e motio n t o supplement th e recordseparate fro

mth e appeal . 2 . First , i

f Respondent

intend s t o dispute th e issue s on appeal , i t wil l hav e t o addres s thos e issue s whethe

r or no t th e document s ar

e adde dt o th e record . Specifically , th e Director' s erro r in concludin g tha

t MNA A me t it s ACDB E goal s throug h th e Hudson-Olympi c join t ventur e an d acte di n goo dfait

h i n acceptin g th e join t

ventur e a s compliant , without

examinin g or

makin g findings tha

t the y complie dwit

h al l of th e regulator

y requirement s an dth e FAA' s Join t Ventur e Guidanc e i s a

n issu e arisin g fro

mth e Director' s Determinatio n an dexistin g Administrativ e Record , whethe

r o r no t th e tw o appendice s t o th e appea l ar e adde dt o th e record . Similarly , th e error s of th e Director' s £)eterminatio n i n failin g t o recogniz e an dapply th e la w regardin g discriminatio n andretaliation aris e fi"omth e Determinatio n itself , th e complaint , andMNAA' s response anddeclaration s alread y in th e Administrativ e Record , andd o no t rely on th e document s attache dt o th e motio n t o supplement . 3 . Second , th e motio n t o supplemen t shoul db e decide da

t th e same tim e a s th e appeal , no t separately . Indeed , tha

t i s wha t th e FA A di di n th e ver

y cas e cite din Respondent' s motion . Boston Ai r

Charte r v . Norwoo dAirpor

t Commission , FA

A Docket No . 16-07-0 3 a

t 27-2 8 (Fina

l Decisio n andOrder , Augus t 14 , 2(X)8

) (acceptin g seven supplementa l exhibit s submitte do

n appeal) . Thus , Respondent ca n addres s an

y objection s o r

an y substantiv e responses i t

ha s t o th e document s i n it s Reply an dth e Assistant

Administrato r

ca n consider

decide th e motio n i n connectio n wit

h determinin g th e appeal . N o dela y i n disposin g of

th e appea

l i s necessar

y or justified . Propose dMotio n t o Strik

e Ne w Issue s 4 . Respondent' s motio n als o announce s tha t i t wil l file wha

t i t dub s a"Motio n T o Strik e Ne w Issue s Raise dO n Appea l AndNo t Considere dBelow, " MNA A Motio n 14 , andthe n argue s 2tha

t i t "canno t kno w ho w t o respon dappropriately " unti l thi s motio n i s decide dan di t know s "th e issue s t o b e considere do n appeal. " /t/. , a t 15 . Th e reques t

fo r asta y an dextensio n o n thi s basi s shoul db e denie dbecaus e Respondent ca n present thi s argumen

t in it s Reply t o th e appeal , an d there i s n o reaso n fo

r th e Responden

t separatel y t o file amotio n t o strik e or , i f separately filed, fo r th e FA A t o decid e amotio n t o strik e separat e fro mth e appeal . 5 . Respondent' s motio n fo r sta y an dextensio n doe s no t

identif y an y purporte dne

w issue s or th e basi s o

n whic h i t contend s tha

t th e issu e or

issue s wer

e no t presente din th e recor

dbelow . Assuming , however , tha

t Responden

t intend s t o attemp t

t o d o so , i t

ca n andshoul drais e thos e argument s i n it s Repl

y t o th e appeal . Responden t ha s th e opportunit

y i n th e Repl

y t o mak e an y an dall £q)propriat

e argument s i t

desire s to mak

e and , thus , ca

n mak e n o clai mof

unfairnes s o r prejudice . 6 . Respondent' s motion , in effect , claim s tha t befor e submittin g it s Reply , i t

i s entitle dt o separat e proceeding s andaseparat e decisio n b y th e FA

A o n wha t issue s ar e presente di n a

n ^peal . Respondent' s motio n canno t point t o an y basi s fo r suc h aclaim , andsuc h apiecemea l an dextende dproces s o

f decidin g appeal s i s contrar y t o th e abbreviate dandstreamline dproces s outline di n 1 4 C.F.R . § § 16.33(b),(c ) an d(d) , th e expedite dprocedure s unde r Par t 1 6 andth e intent o f th e rule s "t o expedite substantiall y th e handlin g anddispositio n o f airport-relate d complaints. " Rule s of

Practic e fo

r Federally-Assiste dAirpor t Proceedings , 6 1 F

R5399 8 (Octobe r 16 , 1996) . Accordingly , n o dela y in disposin g o

f th e appea l i s necessar

y o r justifie don thi s basis . Reques t fo r Immediat e Sta y 7 . Respondent' s motio n furthe r request s a

n immediat

e sta y o f th e tim e fo

r it s Reply durin g th e pendenc y o f

thi s an dth e futur e motion s i t

intend s t o file. It

attempt s t o justif

y thi s reques t

byanalogizin g i t t o th e FAA' s treatmen t o f Complainant' s motio n fo r extensio n o f

tim e t o appeal . Th e circumstance s ar e no t analogou s an dth e reques t fo r asta y o n tha t

basi s shoul db e denied . 8 . I n thei r

motio n fo r

extensio n o f

tim e t o appeal . Complainant' s counse l requeste dan enlargemen t

o f tim e i n whic h t o appea l s o h e coul dfamiliariz e himsel f wit h th e record . Th e motio n als o requeste dtha t th e FA A rul e i n a n expedite dfashio n an dprio r t o th e expiratio n o f

th e tim e fo r appeal , s o tha t

Complainant s coul dappea l pr o s e eve n i f th e motio n wa s denied . Becaus e Respondent' s counse l refuse dt o respon di n a n expedite dmanne r an dprio r

t o expiratio n o f th e tim e fo r

appeal , th e FA A notifie dth e partie s tha t th e Directo r

woul dno t

rul e o n th e motio n unti l aresponse wa s filedan dtha t th e appea l tim e wa s staye dwhil e th e motio n wa s unde r consideration , suc h tha t i t woul dno t

expire . Se e attachmen t t o MNA A motion . Respondent' s motio n i s i n n o wa y comparable : it' s tim e t o Repl y wil l no t ru n prio r

t o th e tim e fo r Complainant' s response t o thi s motion . Complainan t i s responding i n an expedite dmanne r an dth e FA A ca n dispos e o f th e motio n wel l i n advanc e o f th e dat e Respondent' s Repl y i s due . Treatin g motion s filedi n th e cours e o f a n appea l a s asta y o f

submissio n deadline s woul dpermi t partie s unilaterall y t o obtai n extension s merel y b y filing motions , includin g thos e withou t an y merit , suc h a s thi s one . WHEREFORE , Complainan t J& B Enterprises , Inc. , respectfiill y request s tha t MNAA' s motio n fo r

a n immediat e sta y an da n extensio n o f tim e t o file it s repl y i n thi s appea l b e denied . Respectfull y submitted , /s/Thoma s J . Henderso n Thoma s J . Henderso n Henderso n La w Firm , PLL C 142 5 K Street , NW , Suit e 35 0 Washington , D C 2000 5 (202 ) 587-568 7 Telephon e (202 ) 587-560 1 Facsimil e Counse l fo r

Complainan t J& B Enterprises , Inc .CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y tha t I hav e thi s da

y serve dth e foregoin g Oppositio n t o Respondent' s Motio n For hnmediate Sta

y AndA n Extensio n O

f Tim e T o Fil e Reply on th e followin g j)erson s a t th e followin g addresses , b y first clas s mai l thi s 17t

h da y o f July , 2009 : Arthu r P . Ber g Kapla n Kirsc h & Rockwel l LLP 64 1 Lexingto n Ave. , Suite 1409 New York , New Yor

k 1002 2 Thoma s R . Devin e K^la n Kirsc h & Rockwel l LLP 100 1 Connecticut

Ave. , N.W . Suite 80 0 Washington , D.C . 2003 6 Lis aReynold s Kapla n Kirsc h & Rockwel l LLP 167 5 Broadway , Suite 230 0 Denver , C O 8020 2 Rober t Watso n MNA A On e Termina

l Ehive , Suite 50 1 Nashville , TN 3721 4

/s / Thoma s J . Henderso n Thoma s J . Henderso n Counse l fo r

Complainant J& B Enterprises , Inc .