Secretary of Labor v. Cactus Canyon Quarries, Inc. (Commission decision, September 9, 2021)

Plain-English summary

Cactus Canyon Quarries sought immediate Commission review after an administrative law judge refused to certify earlier discovery and summary-judgment rulings. The Commission found that those rulings did not present a controlling question of law. It also found that immediate review would not materially advance the proceeding. The petition for interlocutory review was denied.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.76
• Outcome: Cactus Canyon's petition for interlocutory review was denied.
• Key point: Discovery and summary-judgment rulings did not justify interlocutory review without a controlling legal question that could materially advance the 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.                                              
:         Docket No. CENT 2021-0090

:         A.C. No. 41-00009-527340

CACTUS CANYON
QUARRIES, INC.         :

BEFORE:
Traynor, Chair; Althen and Rajkovich, Commissioners

ORDER

BY
THE COMMISSION:

This proceeding
arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. (2018) (“Mine Act” or “Act”) . On August 30, 2021, Cactus Canyon Quarries, Inc. (“Cactus Canyon”) filed with the Commission a petition for interlocutory review of an order issued by an Administrative Law Judge on August 13, 2021, denying Cactus Canyon’s motion to certify for interlocutory review previous orders by the Judge. See 29 C.F.R. § 2700.76. In the earlier orders, the Judge denied requests by Cactus Canyon to compel discovery and a motion for summary judgment. See PIR at 1.

Upon
consideration of the pleadings filed by Cactus Canyon, we have determined that the Judge’s denial of Cactus Canyon’s motions to compel discovery and motion for summary judgment do not involve a controlling question of law and that immediate review of those rulings would not materially advance the final disposition of this proceeding. See 29 C.F.R. § 2700.76(a)(2). Accordingly, we conclude that Cactus Canyon has failed to establish a basis for granting interlocutory review and, therefore, we deny the petition.

/s/ Arthur R. Traynor, III

Arthur R. Traynor, III, Chair

/s/ William I. Althen

William I. Althen, Commissioner

/s/ Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr.

Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr. , Commissioner

Distribution:

Andy Carson

Cactus Canyon
Quarry Inc.

7232 Co. Road 120

Marble Falls, TX 78654

[email protected]

Tina D. Davila

U.S. Department of
Labor

Office of the
Solicitor

525 Griffin
Street, Suite 501

Dallas, TX 75202

[email protected]

Archith Ramkumar,
Esq.

Office of the
Solicitor

U.S. Department of
Labor

201 12th Street
South, Suite 401

Arlington, VA
22202

[email protected]

April Nelson, Esq.

Office of the
Solicitor

U.S. Department of
Labor

Mine Safety and
Health Division

201 12th Street
South, Suite 401

Arlington, VA
22202-5452

[email protected]

Melanie Garris

U.S. Department of
Labor

Office of Civil
Penalty Compliance

Mine Safety and
Health Administration

201 12th Street
South, Suite 401

Arlington, VA
22202-5452

[email protected]

Chief
Administrative Law Judge Glynn F. Voisin

Federal Mine
Safety & Health Review Commission

1331 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Suite 520N

Washington, DC
20004-1710

[email protected]

Administrative Law
Judge David Simonton

Federal Mine
Safety Health Review Commission

721 19th Street,
Suite 443

Denver, CO
80202-2500

[email protected]