Ellis v. Goodheart Specialty Meats (agency decision, October 26, 2021)

Plain-English summary

The Board had dismissed Mary Ann Ellis's Food Safety Modernization Act case because she gave no basis to disturb the ALJ's summary decision for Goodheart Specialty Meats. It then denied her first reconsideration motion because her arguments did not fit the limited grounds for reconsideration. Ellis filed a second motion raising similar arguments. The Board held that it had already considered those arguments and that they still did not meet its reconsideration standard. It denied the second motion and stated that it would not consider any more reconsideration motions.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 21 U.S.C. § 399d; 29 C.F.R. § 1987.112
• Outcome: Second reconsideration motion denied; no additional reconsideration motions will be considered.
• Key point: Repeating arguments the Board has already rejected does not establish a ground for reconsideration.

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:

MARY ANN ELLIS, ARB CASE NO. 2021-0005

                COMPLAINANT,                        ALJ CASE NO.        2019-FDA-00006

         v.                                         DATE: October 26, 2021

GOODHEART SPECIALTY MEATS,

                RESPONDENT.

Appearances:

For the Complainant:
Mary Ann Ellis; pro se; San Antonio, Texas

For the Respondent:
Frank Davis, Esq.; Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.;
Dallas, Texas

Before: James D. McGinley, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, Thomas H. Burrell and Stephen M. Godek, Administrative Appeals Judges

                      ORDER DENYING COMPLAINANT’S
                   SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

     PER CURIAM. This case arises under the Food Safety Modernization Act

(FSMA).1 On July 19, 2021, the Administrative Review Board (ARB or Board) dismissed this case on the grounds that Mary Ann Ellis (Complainant) failed to provide any grounds to upset the ALJ’s Amended Order Granting Respondent’s Motion for Summary Decision.

1 21 U.S.C. § 399d (2016), as implemented by federal regulations at 29 C.F.R. § 1987 (2021).

                                          2



   On July 27, 2021, Complainant requested the Board to reconsider our

decision. On September 9, 2021, the Board denied Complainant’s Motion for Reconsideration because none of Complainant’s arguments for reconsideration fell within the limited circumstances for reconsideration.2

  On October 12, 2021, Complaint filed a Second Motion for Reconsideration,

which raises similar arguments to Complainant’s First Motion for Reconsideration. However, the Board has already considered these arguments and they still do not meet the standard for reconsideration cited in the Board’s Order dated September 9, 2021.3 Thus, Complainant’s Second Motion for Reconsideration fails to demonstrate a ground upon which the Board will grant reconsideration.

 Accordingly, we DENY Complainant’s Second Motion for Reconsideration.

The Board will not consider any additional motions for reconsideration.4

   SO ORDERED.

2 Ellis v. Goodheart Specialty Meats, ARB No. 2021-0005, ALJ No. 2019-FDA-00006, slip op. at 2-3 (ARB Sep. 9, 2021) (per curiam) (Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration). 3
Gupta v. Headstrong, Inc., ARB Nos. 2015-0032, -0033, ALJ No. 2014-LCA-00008,
slip op. at 2 (ARB Feb. 14, 2017) (Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration) (citation omitted). 4 Complainant may petition for review of the Board’s Decision: “Within 60 days after the issuance of a final order … for which judicial review is available, any person adversely affected or aggrieved by the order may file a petition for review of the order in the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the violation allegedly occurred or the circuit in which the complainant resided on the date of the violation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1987.112.