Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
C.A.D.C.,2011.
Manin v. National Transp. Safety Bd.
Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) emergency revocation of his airline transport pilot, flight instructor, flight
© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
48BIII Airmen
48Bk123 Amendment, Suspension and Revocation of Certificates
48Bk123.1 k. In general. Most Cited Cases
Equity 150 84
150 Equity
150II Laches and Stale Demands
150k84 k. Application of doctrine in general. Most Cited Cases
National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB) unexplained departure from precedent in allowing considera-
tion of a laches defense only in the context of the stale complaint rule, and in rejecting pilot's assertion of laches on
15AIV(D) Hearings and Adjudications
15Ak502 k. Stare decisis; estoppel to change decision. Most Cited Cases
When an agency departs from its prior precedent without explanation, its judgment cannot be upheld.
[4] Aviation 48B 122
[5] Aviation 48B 123.1
48B Aviation
48BIII Airmen
67.403(a)(1).
[6] Administrative Law and Procedure 15A 753
15A Administrative Law and Procedure
ignored.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
N.T.S.B. at 1307 n. 8; see also Adm'r v. Shrader, 6 N.T.S.B. 1400, 1403 (1989) (“It is not sufficient ... simply to
claim ... that the passage of time has or may have affected the availability of documents or witnesses or the strength
of the latters' memories.”). It is also true that Manin made his assertions of prejudice in vague and conclusory terms:
He never identified particular people he was hoping to find or specific details he had forgotten. Nor did he explain
how any people, files, or memories that he can no longer access would enhance his ability to defend against the rev-
have previously held that “[w]hen ‘there is not the slightest uncertainty as to the outcome of a proceeding’
on remand, courts can affirm an agency decision on grounds other than those provided in the agency deci-
sion.” Envirocare of Utah, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 194 F.3d 72, 79 (D.C.Cir.1999) (quoting
NLRB v. Wyman–Gordon, 394 U.S. 759, 766 n. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1426, 22 L.Ed.2d 709 (1969)). We cast no
doubt on the validity of this doctrine but find only that the FAA has not met the standard here.
construed its own case law as allowing consideration of a laches defense only in the context of the stale complaint
rule, and rejected Manin's assertion of laches on that basis, we remand to the agency for reconsideration of Manin's
defense. We reiterate that we are not suggesting that the Board could not have properly reached the same conclusion
on a different basis, only that we cannot accept that basis as a post hoc justification when the reason offered by the
Board does not withstand review.
for disorderly conduct in response to the query whether he had ever had a “history of nontraffic conviction(s) (mis-
demeanors or felonies).” Manin maintained that the agency failed to prove the third element of the offense. He de-
nied ever making a knowing and intentionally false statement, insisting that “to the best of his knowledge and belief
[he] was never arrested or convicted for a non traffic Misdemeanor or Felony.” He initially argued to the agency that
he believed the two convictions to be “minor summary offenses” that did not need to be reported. (Elaborating on
© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
48BIII Airmen
48Bk123 Amendment, Suspension and Revocation of Certificates
48Bk123.1 k. In general. Most Cited Cases
Equity 150 84
150 Equity
150II Laches and Stale Demands
150k84 k. Application of doctrine in general. Most Cited Cases
National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB) unexplained departure from precedent in allowing considera-
tion of a laches defense only in the context of the stale complaint rule, and in rejecting pilot's assertion of laches on
15AIV(D) Hearings and Adjudications
15Ak502 k. Stare decisis; estoppel to change decision. Most Cited Cases
When an agency departs from its prior precedent without explanation, its judgment cannot be upheld.
[4] Aviation 48B 122
[5] Aviation 48B 123.1
48B Aviation
48BIII Airmen
67.403(a)(1).
[6] Administrative Law and Procedure 15A 753
15A Administrative Law and Procedure
ignored.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
N.T.S.B. at 1307 n. 8; see also Adm'r v. Shrader, 6 N.T.S.B. 1400, 1403 (1989) (“It is not sufficient ... simply to
claim ... that the passage of time has or may have affected the availability of documents or witnesses or the strength
of the latters' memories.”). It is also true that Manin made his assertions of prejudice in vague and conclusory terms:
He never identified particular people he was hoping to find or specific details he had forgotten. Nor did he explain
how any people, files, or memories that he can no longer access would enhance his ability to defend against the rev-
have previously held that “[w]hen ‘there is not the slightest uncertainty as to the outcome of a proceeding’
on remand, courts can affirm an agency decision on grounds other than those provided in the agency deci-
sion.” Envirocare of Utah, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 194 F.3d 72, 79 (D.C.Cir.1999) (quoting
NLRB v. Wyman–Gordon, 394 U.S. 759, 766 n. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1426, 22 L.Ed.2d 709 (1969)). We cast no
doubt on the validity of this doctrine but find only that the FAA has not met the standard here.
construed its own case law as allowing consideration of a laches defense only in the context of the stale complaint
rule, and rejected Manin's assertion of laches on that basis, we remand to the agency for reconsideration of Manin's
defense. We reiterate that we are not suggesting that the Board could not have properly reached the same conclusion
on a different basis, only that we cannot accept that basis as a post hoc justification when the reason offered by the
Board does not withstand review.
for disorderly conduct in response to the query whether he had ever had a “history of nontraffic conviction(s) (mis-
demeanors or felonies).” Manin maintained that the agency failed to prove the third element of the offense. He de-
nied ever making a knowing and intentionally false statement, insisting that “to the best of his knowledge and belief
[he] was never arrested or convicted for a non traffic Misdemeanor or Felony.” He initially argued to the agency that
he believed the two convictions to be “minor summary offenses” that did not need to be reported. (Elaborating on
