NTSB Enforcement Decision

Arnold said:
Just a quick note to let you know that I've added a monthly recap of NTSB enforcement decision to my website.

see: http://www.arnoldfeldman.com/menuavlaw/ntsb-decisions

I'll try to update this each month.

Let me know if you have any suggestions.
Click to expand...

Thanks...nice summaries of the rulings.

You seem to combine the two areas of law that impact my life the most! My I-485 (EB1C) was filed on January 31.
 
Very interesting. I hope you'll let us know when it's updated so we know when to look.

Question on the one at the bottom, 5571. What exactly is the difference between dismission with and without prejudice?
 
Dismissal with prejudice means the case is effectively decided in respondant's favor and cannot be revisited by the FAA (other than to appeal the dismissal itself). Dismissal without prejudice means the case as presented is not sufficient to proceed against respondent, but is not decided and allows the FAA to resubmit the case with additional evidence, altered arguments, etc., at a later date (but still within the 180-day "stale complaint" limit).
 
In general "with prejudice" means that the issue is done and cannot be further litigated. Because a case that is dismissed "without prejudice" stands a chance of being refiled or reopened there can be some question as to its finality. Lastly, in the context of this case, and this was very good lawyering by the pilot's counsel, there is now the possibility to collect attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).

This is the relevant quote from the case:
Recently, the D.C. Circuit clarified that, for a party to have “prevailed” under the EAJA: (1) there must be a “court-ordered change in the legal relationship” of the parties; (2) the judgment must be in favor of the party seeking fees; and (3) the judicial pronouncement must be accompanied by judicial relief. In Turner and Coonan, the court found that the law judge’s failure to dismiss the case with prejudice meant the parties’ legal relationship did not change, and the applicants did not attain judicial relief. Therefore, the applicants in Turner and Coonan had not attained “prevailing party” status, according to the D.C. Circuit, and were ineligible for fees under the EAJA.

​
Reviewing the time line you can see that the FAA was jerking this guy around for nearly 3 years. It looks like the Law Judge and the NTSB were unwilling to aid and abet the FAA tactics.
 
Thanks for the extra clarification, Arnold. Very interesting, I look forward to reading more of these.
 
The fact that they denied the FAA's suit against the mechanic because the aircraft developed a leak days later was refreshing. Nonsense indeed. Not that the FAA's lawyers will suffer any for it.
 
I have read some of these in the past and one comes away from it many times thinking:

-their attorneys are sometimes devious & deceptive, and often out for blood.
-they could make your life a living 4ell; not to mention leave you broke for lack of working plus legal expenses.
-you never ever want to be in their crosshairs

-and of course, you also run across cases where they do 'get their man' and it seems appropriate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top