Branham Sign Company, Inc.

Plain-English summary

Branham Sign Company did not comply with two pretrial conference and scheduling orders. After the judge issued a corrected order to show cause, the company's response did not explain those failures. The judge found that the company had refused to participate in pretrial conferences and had prejudiced the Secretary by not discussing the issues, witnesses, or defenses. He granted the Secretary's motion for default judgment and affirmed the citation and proposed penalty in full. The decision does not identify the cited standards or penalty amount.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): The decision does not identify the substantive standards in the citation.
• Outcome: Default judgment granted; citation and proposed penalty affirmed in full.
• Key point: Refusing to comply with pretrial orders and participate in required conferences can result in default.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

                   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
       OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Complainant,
v. Docket No. 02-0969
BRANHAM SIGN COMPANY, INC.,
Respondent.

  DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

    On August 27, 2002, the undersigned issued his Order and Corrected Order To

Show Cause. The Corrected Order required the Respondent to explain its reason(s) for its
failure to comply with this Court’s two Pre-Trial Conference and Scheduling Orders
dated August 5 and August 16, 2002. The purpose of the two orders was to encourage
settlement of the case or if, unsuccessful, then to narrow the issues.

  The Respondent filed its reply on August 29, 2002. It was a diatribe in which the

Respondent failed to address the issue raised in the Corrected Order To Show Cause.

                        DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

   Our system of government offers its citizens unlimited freedoms; however, the

freedoms are based upon laws, regulations and responsibilities. Additionally, it is
axiomatic to our democracy that citizens demonstrate respect for the Courts, the
adjudicative process and, however, begrudgingly, respect for the opposing party.

    While the Respondent professes “love [for] my Country,” it states “[it has] no

love, or respect or feelings of duty for the Government of the United States of America.”
Supporting his disdain for the laws, regulations, and responsibilities expected of its
citizenry, the Respondent (1) ignored this Court’s Order dated August 5, 2002 by failing
to notify the Court of Respondent’s unavailability to participate in the scheduled August
16, 2002, pre-trial telephone conference, and (2) refused to participate in the scheduled
August 20, 2002, pre-trial telephone conference.
 It is the opinion of this Court that the Respondent has no intention to act
responsibly in this matter but to engage in a vitriolic discourse against the United States
government, in general and against the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, in
particular. This Court has made allowances for the pro se employer. In return, the pro se
employer has engaged in contumacious conduct and has prejudiced the complainant by its
failure to engage in ANY discussions regarding issue and witness identification and any
defenses the Respondent intended to assert. See Sealtite Corp.,15 BNA OSHC 1130
(No.88-1431, 1991).

   IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Default Judgement is GRANTED.

   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Citation and Notification of penalty

issued June 5, 2002, is affirmed in its entirety.

Dated: September 16, 2002 _/s/______
Washington, D.C. G. Marvin Bober
Administrative Law Judge