Where the complaint states allegations of offenses which occurred more than 6 months prior to the Administrator's advising the respondent as to reasons for proposed action under 49 U.S.C. 44709(c), the respondent may move to dismiss such allegations as stale pursuant to the following provisions:
(a) In those cases where the complaint does not allege lack of qualification of the respondent:
(1) The Administrator shall be required to show, by reply filed within 15 days after the date of service of the respondent's motion, that good cause existed for the delay in providing such advice, or that the imposition of a sanction is warranted in the public interest, notwithstanding the delay or the reasons therefor.
(2) If the Administrator does not establish good cause for the delay, or for the imposition of a sanction in the public interest notwithstanding the delay, the law judge shall dismiss the stale allegations and proceed to adjudicate the remaining portion of the complaint, if any.
(b) In those cases where the complaint alleges lack of qualification of the respondent, the law judge shall first determine whether an issue of lack of qualification would be presented if all of the allegations, stale and timely, are assumed to be true. If so, the law judge shall deny the respondent's motion. If not, the law judge shall proceed as in paragraph (a) of this section.
Notes of Decisions
Michael Huerta v. Jody Ducote, 792 F.3d 144 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
· cites it 20× “49 C.F.R. § 821.33 . The stale complaint rule does not apply, however, when the “complaint 4 alleges lack of qualification of the respondent.”
Ramaprakash v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 346 F.3d 1121 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
· cites it 3× “Before the NTSB, Ramaprakash conceded that he had committed a FAR violation, but moved for dismissal of the FAA’s action against him in light of the Board’s “stale complaint rule” — Rule 33 of the NTSB’s Rules of Practice in Air Safety Proceedings, codified at 49 C.F.R. § 821.33…”
Manin v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 627 F.3d 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
· cites it 2× “49 C.F.R. § 821.33 . If the complaint alleges that an airman lacks the qualifications to hold a certificate, the stale complaint rule does not apply.”
Zukas v. Hinson, 124 F.3d 1407 (11th Cir. 1997).
· cites it 4× “[the pilot certificate holder] may move to dismiss such allegations----” 49 C.F.R. § 821.33 . By its specific terms, however, the stale complaint rule is preempted when there are allegations of the phot certificate holder’s lack of qualifications.”
Randall Lee King v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 766 F.2d 200 (5th Cir. 1985).
· cites it 3× “The “stale complaint rule,” 49 C.F.R. § 821.33 (1984), provides that a respondent may move to dismiss a complaint against him if the complaint states allegations of offenses which occurred more than six months prior to the Administrator’s notice to the respondent of a proposed…”
Turner v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 608 F.3d 12 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
“They point only to 49 C.F.R. § 821.33 (a), but that regulation merely authorizes an ALJ, upon motion, to dismiss a complaint the FAA files more than six months after the alleged events occurred if and only if the FAA fails to show' either that “good cause existed for the delay”…”
Thunderbird Propellers, Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 191 F.3d 1290 (10th Cir. 1999).
· cites it 3× “We are asked to consider three issues: (1), whether the “stale complaint rule,” 49 C.F.R. § 821.33 , mandates dismissal of the complaint against Thunderbird;(2), whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s findings as to Counts III and V; and(3),…”
Robert Tur v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 4 F.3d 766 (9th Cir. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Tur next argues that the Administrator used the emergency rules to circumvent the “Stale Complaint Rule,” 49 C.F.R. § 821.33 . Petitioner appears to believe that the Administrator declared an emergency to take advantage of 49 C.”
Steven R. Cowell v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 612 F.2d 505 (10th Cir. 1980).
“Cowell also contends that at least certain of the charges in the complaint occurred more than 6 months prior to the FAA’s order and were therefore “stale” under 49 C.F.R. § 821.33 . That regulation does provide that where the complaint states allegations of offenses which…”
United States v. Wagner (S.D. Cal. 2023).
· cites it 2× “Compare 49 C.F.R. § 821.33 (b) (motion to dismiss under 6-month stale complaint 7 rule shall be denied when complaint alleges lack of qualification) with ECF No.”
Barry M. Cornish v. Fed. Aviation Admin. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 429 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2005).
· cites it 2× “” On appeal, Cornish argues that the decision to dismiss his appeal as untimely was arbitrary and capricious (the appropriate standard of review) because the NTSB has dismissed nearly every appeal since Hooper without explaining what would constitute good cause, and because the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.