BMI Salvage Corp. v. Miami-Dade Cnty., Fla.-124 – ACRP Legal Research Digest 21

FAA Docket No:

16-05-16

Lexis Cite:

2007 FAA LEXIS 85

Westlaw Cite:

2007 WL 926176

Author:

Shaffer, D. Kirk, Associate Administrator for Airports

Author Title:

Associate Administrator for Airports

Complainant(s):

BMI Salvage Corp.|Blueside Services, Inc.

Respondent(s):

Miami-Dade County (Fla.) Aviation Department

Airport(s):

Opa-Locka Airport (OPF)

History:

Reversed and remanded sub nom. BMI Salvage Corp. v. FAA, 272 F. App'x 842 (11th Cir. Apr. 8, 2008) (unpublished).|See also Final Decision and Order on Remand of Apr. 15, 2011 (Determination No. 227).

Holding:

Affirming Director's Determination of July 25, 2006. See Determination No. 160.

Abstract:

In its original complaints, Complainants BMI Salvage Corp. and Blueside Services, Inc., alleged that Respondent, Miami-Dade County's Aviation Department unjustly discriminated against them in violation of Grant Assurance 22. On appeal Complainants argued that the Director erred by (1) concluding that Respondent was not currently in violation of Grant Assurance 22 by failing to offer Complainants a lease comparable to leases offered to similarly situated tenants; and (2) making decisions about the evidence without conducting an evidentiary hearing in violation of Complainants' due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Associate Administrator affirmed the Director's Determination and dismissed the Appeal. In addition, the Final Decision and Order found the following:|Similarly Situated:|Complainant BMI and Clero Aviation, another tenant, were not similarly situated in the context of Grant Assurance 22 even though they both attempted to lease condemned buildings, because (1) the businesses were engaged in different activities - Complainant was an aircraft demolition business while Clero was an aircraft repair business; (2) the leases had different purposes - Clero entered into a lease to operate its existing repair station business while Complainant either wanted to establish permanent facilities for the demolition business or a new repair facility; and (3) Complainant had a nonaeronautical element to its business while Clero did not. (pp. 14-15).|Complainant BMI and Miami Executive Aviation, another tenant, were not similarly situated in the context of Grant Assurance 22, because Complainant specialized in the teardown and demolition of aircraft while Miami Executive was an FBO. (p. 15).|Complainant Blueside and Miami Executive Aviation were not similarly situated in the context of Grant Assurance 22, because Miami Executive was a current tenant operating an established FBO business and Blueside was proposing to introduce a new FBO business. (p. 16).|Complainants failed to allege sufficient facts for a claim of unjust discrimination where they did not allege that (1) they had made a clear, definitive and consistent proposal to Respondent; (2) their proposal and the proposal of another aeronautical tenant were similar; (3) what they asked for and did not get was the same thing - and under the same circumstances - as what another comparable aviation entity asked for and did get. (p. 19).|Part 16 Procedure:|The Part 16 process does not mandate the opportunity for a complainant to have a hearing. (p. 21).|The Director did not err by characterizing the required evidence as "credible." (p. 20).|Part 16 requires that all relevant facts be presented in the complaint documents and no new allegations or issues should be presented on appeal. (p. 22).|Review by the Associate Administrator was limited to an examination of the Director's Determination and the Administrative Record upon which such Determination was based. (p. 22).

Index Terms:

BMI Salvage Corp. v. Miami-Dade Cnty., Fla. -- No. 16-05-16 -- No. FAA-2005-22380