•) 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORHATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

AIRPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL 

LAW, AGC-600 

Venice Jet Center, LLC 

Complainant, 

V. 

City of Venice, Florida 

Respondent. 

FAA Docket No. 16-09-05 

/ 

COMPLAINANT VENICE JET CENTER. LLC'S RESPONSE TO CiyV OFr^ 

VENICE'S MOTION TO DISMISS "^ 

Complainant Venice Jet Center, LLC ("the VJC"), by and through the undersigned 

counsel, hereby files its Response pursuant to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 

16.19(c) to the Respondent City of Venice's ("the City" or "Respondent") Motion to Dismiss 

("Motion to Dismiss") dated February 18, 2010. In support thereof, VJC states as follows: 

I. Introduction 

On September 2, 2009, the City moved to dismiss this proceeding, contending the 

dispute was unripe, that the VJC lacked standing, and that the claims were insufficiently 

pled. The City now requests the FAA disregard that motion and, instead, dismiss this 

proceeding on "grounds of mootness" on the basis that the federal Receiver appointed over 

the VJC sold its assets and assigned its airport lease agreements to Tristate Aviation Group of 

Florida, LLC ("Tristate"). These new arguments devised by the City (and the arguments 

raised against Tristate as an intervenor) merely represent additional efforts to avoid its 

federal obligations as an airport sponsor. The motion of the City not only has no merit but is 
additional evidence of the City's hardened determination to avoid its responsibility for its 

past and continuing willful conduct and fiiture obligations. The City continues to engage in a 

pattern of discriminatory and anti-competitive conduct to restrict aeronautical services at the 

airport and the VJC continues to be directly and substantially affected by the City's current 

non-compliance. Contrary to the City's contentions, the VJC has interests and rights in this 

proceeding and its claims are not moot. The City's claim that the VJC no longer has a legal 

interest in the outcome of this proceeding is patently false and, more importantly, 

inconsistent with its representations to the Court presiding over the federal receivership. 

II. The VJC Has A Legal Interest In The Outcome Of This Proceeding And 

Its Claims Are Not Moot 

The City argues that the VJC's claims are moot because it sold its assets and 

transferred its airport lease agreements to Tristate. Initially, whether the VJC sold its assets 

to Tristate has no bearing on the pendency of this proceeding. The sale of assets was merely 

that, an asset sale. It did not result in the liquidation, dissolution, or closing of the VJC; the 

entity remains active and its rights as a company remain intact. 

Further, the City's assertion that the assignment of the airport lease agreement 

divested VJC of its legal interests in this matter is inconsistent with its own argument that the 

VJC remains liable under the lease. Specifically, the City asserts in its supporting 

memorandum filed in this proceeding that the assignment of the VJC's lease to Tristate "shall 

not release or relieve [VJC] from any duty, obligation or liability under the terms and 

conditions of the [VJC] lease." Likewise, in its Response to the Receiver's Motion for 

Approval of the Sale of the VJC's Assets, filed in the federal Receivership action, the City 

argued the VJC should remain liable for its obligations under the lease: 
"Under Florida law, a lessee's assignment of a lease to a third party does not 

relieve the lessee from its financial or other obligations to the lessor. 

Kornblum v. Henry E. Mangels Co., 167 So.2d 16 (Fla.3d DCA 1964). As 

such, VJC should remain liable for its obligations under the Lease, 

notwithstanding the assignment to Tristate." (City of Venice's Response to 

Receiver's Motion for Approval of Sale of the Assets of VJC, ^j 25). 

The City's disingenuous and nonsensical position that VJC is liable under the lease yet has 

no interest in the lease or the outcome of this proceeding is further evidence of its unrelenting 

willful determination to ignore its airport tenant's property rights and to avoid its own 

responsibilities under the lease and pursuant to federal obligations. 

Further, there is a debt owed by the purchaser of the VJC's assets and payment of that 

debt will depend on profitability of the purchaser's operations and, in part, on its ability to 

construct the hangars. Accordingly, the VJC does have a legal interest in the outcome of this 

proceeding, apart from its continuing obligations under the airport lease. In sum, the VJC 

still has standing to pursue this action because it remains an entity that is directly and 

substantially affected by an airport sponsor's alleged noncompliance. 14 C.F.R. § 16.23. 

The City deliberately ignores the contentious dispute that continues between it, the 

VJC and Tristate, and instead contends neither VJC nor Tristate have a ripe claim. As 

always, the City's true desire is transparent. Tristate has repeatedly advised the City of its 

ongoing intention to complete the VJC's development plan. The City would like nothing 

more than to avoid its day of reckoning and continue its obstructionist conduct against 

Tristate. If the City is successful in this motion it will continue to violate its federal 

obligations. The City has made every effort to obtain a dismissal in order to avoid a ruling 

on the merits of the Part 16 Complaint, to avoid accountability for its actions, and to prevent 

the hangars project from going forward. Such a result would clearly allow the City to 
flagrantly undermine the FAA's goverrmiental mandate and should not be condoned or 

permitted by the FAA. For the foregoing reasons, the City's most recent Motion to Dismiss 

should also be denied. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have served the foregoing on the following persons at the 

following address by overnight mail on February 24, 2010: 

Office of the Chief Counsel Jonathan Cross 

Attn: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Manager 

Docket, AGC-610 Airports and Environmental Law division 

Room 925 Federal Aviation Administration 

Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20591 

Washington, DC 20591 Facsimile (202) 267-5769 

Original and 3 copies by overnight 1 Copy 

delivery 

I hereby certify that I have served the foregoing on the following persons at the 

following addresses by E-mail on February 24, 2010: 

Raymond Veatch, Esq. 

Airport and Environmental Law Division 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Room 900-E 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

(202) 267-3199 (office) 

(202) 267-9676 (direct) 

(202) 267-5769 (fax) 

raymond. veatch@faa. gov 

Richard L. Richards, Esq. 

RICHARDS & ASSOCIATES 

232 Andalusia Avenue, Suite 202 

Coral Gables, Florida 33134 

Telephone: (305) 448-2228 

Facsimile: (305) 448-2229 
Email: rrichards(airichpa.net 

I hereby fiarther certify that I have served the foregoing on the following persons at 

the following address by overnight mail and electronic mail on February 24, 2010: 

Thomas R. Devine 

Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP 

1001 Connecticut Ave. NW, Ste. 800 

Washington, DC 20036 

Telephone: (202) 955-5600 

Email: tdevine@kaplankirsch.com 

I hereby further certify that I have served the foregoing on the following persons at 

the following address by United States mail on February 24, 2010: 

Robert C. Anderson 

Hall & Anderson, P. A 

1314 East Venice Avenue, Suite E 

Venice, Florida 34285 

/GiaAluca Mojf^lo,^N 034997 

( GMorello@wiandlaw.com 

NDominique H. Pearlman, FBN 0044135 

DPearlman@wiandlaw.com 

WIAND GUERRA KING P.L. 

3000 Bayport Drive, Ste. 600 

Tampa, FL 33607 

Phone(813)347-5109 

Fax (813) 347-5159 

Attorneys for the Complainant, Venice Jet 

Center, LLC