Person Filing The Suit Is Seeking Refund Of His Registration Fee

A drone operator from Pulaski County, Arkansas named Michael Reichert has filed a class-action lawsuit against the FAA because he has not yet received a refund for his $5 drone registration fee, nor has the FAA responded to his requests for the refund.

According to the complaint, Reichert registered his drone as required by the FAA. But when a federal judge deemed that the registration was in violation of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, he contacted the FAA for a refund of his $5 fee.

The FAA responded to his initial request, made on June 2, 2017, only to inform him of another office he should contact for the refund. He contacted that office and left a voice message, and has followed op with other emails and phone calls, but has not received a response from the FAA.

The complaint names FAA Administrator Michael Huerta as the principal defendant. In the filing, Reichert said that he was bringing the action "individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23. This action satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy prerequisites under Rule 23(a). In addition, this action satisfies the requirements of rule 23(b)(3) and, alternatively, Rule 23(b)(2).

The proposed Class is defined as All owners of Model Aircraft who registered their Model Aircraft with the FAA.

With over 700,000 drones registered with the agency, the filing acknowledges that the members of the proposed Class are so numerous that joinder is impractical. The proposed Class consists of hundreds of thousands of members, the identity of whom is within the knowledge of the FAA and can be ascertained by access to FAA records.

Reichert is seeking to have the FAA refund all of the $5 registration fees it has collected since the system was instigated, including those who have voluntarily registered after the judge deemed that drone registration was contrary to law. The FAA continued to "encourage" drone operators to register their aircraft. He is also seeking payment of attorney's fees.

Drone attorney Jonathan Rupprecht, who posted the text of the complaint on his website, said "The FAA recklessly went into creating the drone registration regulations. They went ahead contrary to regulatory procedural law as well as the prohibition placed upon them by Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to create a regulation governing model aircraft. The D.C. Circuit Court struck down the drone registry as applied to model aircraft as illegal in the Taylor v. Huerta case. This new case is following up on the ruling to try and obtain refunds and information deletions for members of the protected class. The FAA wouldn't be in this mess if they would have followed the law. Everyone, the FAA as well as all drone flyers, should follow the law. Reckless flying, as well as reckless rulemaking, should be condemned."

(Image from file)

FMI: jrupprechtlaw.com/reichert-v-faa-drone-registration-class-action-lawsuit