Secretary of Labor v. Pete Lien & Sons, Inc. (Commission decision, February 10, 2015)

Secretary of Labor v. Pete Lien & Sons, Inc. (FMSHRC CENT 2013-472-M): Default vacated after answer was misidentified

Decision type
Commission decision
Docket
CENT 2013-472-M
Decided
February 10, 2015
Outcome
Remanded
Precedential status
Citable Commission precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-02

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 2015, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 2015
The MSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Decision of the Commission
This is a decision of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, the highest level of agency review, citable as Commission precedent. It may have been appealed to a U.S. Court of Appeals after issuance under 30 U.S.C. § 816; check subsequent history before relying on it. The full text below is from the official FMSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FMSHRC release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Pete Lien & Sons asked the Commission to reopen a penalty case that had defaulted after the company did not appear to answer the Secretary's penalty petition. The operator showed that it had submitted an answer before the deadline, but a typographical error gave the wrong docket and case numbers, so the Commission did not associate it with this proceeding. The Secretary did not oppose reopening, although he cautioned that future procedural failures might draw opposition. Treating default as a harsh remedy and finding good cause, the Commission reopened the case, vacated the default order, and remanded for proceedings on the merits.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing authority: 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)
  • Outcome: The default order was vacated and the penalty proceeding was remanded to the Chief ALJ.
  • Key point: A timely answer misidentified by typographical errors can establish good cause to reopen a defaulted penalty case.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
REVIEW COMMISSION

1331
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON,
D.C. 20004-1710

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH  

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

PETE LIEN & SONS, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No.

A.C. No.

CENT 2013-472-M

39-00020-318697

BEFORE: Nakamura, Acting Chairman; Cohen and Althen, Commissioners

ORDER

BY
THE COMMISSION:

This matter arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C.    § 801 et seq. (2012) (“Mine Act”). On February 3, 2014, the Commission received from Pete Lien & Sons, Inc., (“Pete Lien”) a motion seeking to reopen a penalty assessment proceeding and relieve it from the Default Order entered against it.

On August 8, 2013, the Chief Administrative Law Judge issued an Order to Show Cause in response to Pete Lien’s failure to answer the Secretary of Labor’s June 24, 2013 Petition for Assessment of Civil Penalty. By its terms, the Order to Show Cause became a Default Order on September 9, 2013, when the operator did not file an answer within 30 days.

Pete Lien asserts that on August 29, 2013, it submitted an answer to the Secretary’s Petition for Assessment of Civil Penalty, but that, due to a typographical error, the operator had incorrectly listed the docket number and case number in its answer, which is why the Commission never received it. The Secretary does not oppose the request, but notes that the safety coordinator at Pete Lien is a former MSHA inspector who is aware of MSHA’s contest procedures. The Secretary cautions that he may oppose future motions to reopen penalty assessments where proper procedures are not followed.

The Judge’s jurisdiction in this matter terminated when the default occurred. 29 C.F.R.  § 2700.69(b). Under the Mine Act and the Commission’s procedural rules, relief from a judge’s decision may be sought by filing a petition for discretionary review within 30 days of its issuance. 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(2)(A)(i); 29 C.F.R. § 2700.70(a). If the Commission does not direct review within 40 days of a decision’s issuance, it becomes a final decision of the Commission. 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1). Consequently, the Judge’s order here has become a final decision of the Commission.

In evaluating requests to reopen final orders, the Commission has found guidance in Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under which the Commission may relieve a party from a final order of the Commission on the basis of mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, or other reason justifying relief. See 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b) (“the Commission and its Judges shall be guided so far as practicable by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”); Jim Walter Res., Inc., 15 FMSHRC 782, 786-89 (May 1993). We have also observed that default is a harsh remedy and that, if the defaulting party can make a showing of good cause for a failure to timely respond, the case may be reopened and appropriate proceedings on the merits will be permitted. See Coal Prep. Servs., Inc., 17 FMSHRC 1529, 1530 (Sept. 1995).

Having reviewed Pete Lien’s request and the Secretary’s response, in the interest of justice, we hereby reopen the proceeding and vacate the Default Order. Accordingly, this case is remanded to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings pursuant to the Mine Act and the Commission’s Procedural Rules, 29 C.F.R. Part 2700.

/s/ Patrick K. Nakamura

Patrick K. Nakamura, Acting
Chairman

/s/ Robert F.
Cohen, Jr.

Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

/s/ William I.
Althen

William I. Althen, Commissioner

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace