A Department of Transportation Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) recently accepted an untimely answer from a respondent under circumstances where the NTSB certainly would have rejected the answer. In In re Dennis Kaill, the FAA was pursuing a civil penalty action against the respondent for unspecified violations. When the FAA did not receive a timely answer to its complaint, the FAA filed for a default judgment. However, the respondent objected to the motion.
The respondent acknowledged that he had failed to submit his answer in timely fashion, but he cited ignorance and confusion about procedural requirements to explain his tardiness. His filing also addressed matters raised in the FAA’s complaint. The ALJ denied the FAA’s motion and held that the respondent had shown good cause for failing to submit a timely answer. The ALJ also accepted the respondent’s objection in lieu of an answer because it addressed the issues raised in the FAA’s complaint.
This individual is fortunate that civil penalty matters are heard by the DOT Hearings Office and not the NTSB. As you may recall from the many cases I have discussed here, ignorance and confusion do not constitute “good cause” in the eyes of the NTSB and have been repeatedly rejected as valid reasons for failing to timely file documents with the Board. Perhaps the NTSB could take a lesson and relax, even if ever so slightly, its scarcely defined and rarely met definition of “good cause.”
