Johnson v. Michigan Carpet Delivery (agency decision, November 19, 2020)

Plain-English summary

The Board ordered Michael Johnson to file his opening brief by October 22, 2020. After he missed that deadline, Michigan Carpet Delivery sought dismissal and the Board ordered Johnson to explain why the appeal should continue. Johnson responded and requested another 60 days, citing difficulties and hardships that the Board said it viewed sympathetically. The Board nevertheless found no good cause for missing both the brief deadline and the opportunity to request an extension beforehand, so it dismissed the case.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: None beyond the Board's docket-management precedents.
• Outcome: Case dismissed for failure to comply with the briefing order.
• Key point: A party seeking more time must request it before the filing deadline or show good cause for failing to do so.

Full text (DOL official public release)

U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20210-0001

  IN THE MATTER OF:


  MICHAEL JOHNSON,                                  ARB CASE NO. 2020-0051

               COMPLAINANT,                         ALJ CASE NO. 2019-STA-00065

        v.                                          DATE: November 19, 2020

  MICHIGAN CARPET DELIVERY,

               RESPONDENT.


                         ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

        By Order dated September 24, 2020, the Administrative Review Board
  (Board or ARB) issued a briefing order in the above captioned case. Complainant’s
  opening brief was due on or before October 22, 2020.

         On October 26, 2020, Respondent requested that the Board dismiss
  Complainant’s appeal for failure to file a timely brief. Subsequently, on October 29,
  2020, the Board issued an Order to Show Cause to Complainant explaining why his
  case should not be dismissed for failure to file his opening brief and ordering
  Complainant to file his brief with any response.

        On November 12, 2020, Complainant submitted his response to the Order to
  Show Cause. Along with his response to the Order to Show Cause, Complainant
  requested an additional 60 days to file his opening brief. Complainant provided
  reasons for the delay in filing his brief with which we are sympathetic. However,
  the Board’s authority to effectively manage its docket, including authority to
  require compliance with the Board briefing orders, is necessary to “achieve orderly
  and expeditious disposition of cases.”1 This Board has authority to issue sanctions,

  1
         McCray v. Automotive Component Carrier, LLC, ARB No. 2016-0050, ALJ No. 2011-STA-
  00053 (ARB Aug. 4, 2016); see also Link v. Wabash, 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962).
                                         2

including dismissal, for a party’s failure to comply with the Board’s orders and briefing requirements.2

   While Complainant provided the Board with some explanation of the

difficulties and hardships in his life, he has not provided good cause to excuse his failure to file his initial brief, or in the alternative, to file a motion requesting an extension to file his brief prior to the due date. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED.

FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD:

JAMES D. MCGINLEY
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

2
Id.