Williams v. D.L.F., Inc. (agency decision, April 5, 2019)

Plain-English summary

D.L.F. notified the Board of a bankruptcy filing and asked it to close the appeal administratively until the automatic stay ended. Public records later indicated that the bankruptcy proceeding may have closed or terminated in September 2016, but neither side provided further information. In February 2019, the Board ordered the parties to explain why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of diligent prosecution. Neither responded. The Board dismissed the employer's petition and made the August 2015 ALJ decision the Secretary's final order.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)
• Outcome: Employer's petition for review dismissed for failure to prosecute; ALJ decision became the Secretary's final order.
• Key point: An appeal left inactive after a bankruptcy stay apparently ended was dismissed when neither party answered the Board's show-cause order.

Full text (DOL official public release)

U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210

  In the Matter of:

  MICHAEL WILLIAMS,                               ARB CASE NO. 2015-0089

                  COMPLAINANT,                    ALJ CASE NO. 2013-STA-00027

         v.                                       DATE: April 5, 2019

  D.L.F., INC.,

                  RESPONDENT.

  BEFORE:         THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD

                   ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW

          Respondent, D.L.F., Inc., informed the Administrative Review Board of its
  January 3, 2016, Notice of Bankruptcy Case Filing with the United States
  Bankruptcy Court, Easter District of Michigan. On January 20, 2016, Respondent
  requested the Board close the case for administrative purposes without prejudice
  until the automatic stay is terminated as provided in 11 U.S.C. § 362(c). No further
  information has been received from either party to this appeal. Public records
  indicate that the bankruptcy proceeding may have been closed or otherwise
  terminated on or about September 26, 2016. An automatic stay ordinarily
  terminates upon case closure. Id. § 362(c)(2)(A). On February 26, 2019, the
  undersigned issued an Order to Show Cause as to why this appeal should not be
  dismissed for failure to diligently prosecute the action. The Order was properly
  served to the last known addresses of the Parties, and no response has been received
  as of the date of issuance of this Order. Accordingly, the Petition for Review filed by
  Respondent in this matter is hereby DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO
  PROSECUTE, and the Decision and Order of the Administrative Law Judge, dated
  August 26, 2015, is now the final order of the Secretary of Labor in this matter.

  FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD:

  William T. Barto
  Chief Administrative Appeals Judge

  Note: Questions regarding any case pending before the Board should be directed to
  the Board’s staff: Telephone: (202) 693-6200; Facsimile: (202)693-6220