Ezel / Agency Decisions / cent-87-39-m-alj
FMSHRC ALJ decision Docket CENT 87-39-M Decided November 13, 1987 Procedural Judge George A. Koutras

Heldenfels Brothers, Inc.

Heldenfels Brothers, Inc. (FMSHRC CENT 87-39-M): Default judgment entered for $80 in penalties

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1987 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent say, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1987
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.
Final ALJ decision, not Commission precedent
This decision became final under the 40-day rule in 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1) because no later Commission review appears in the official index. It binds the parties but is not binding on the Commission in other cases. 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

Heldenfels Brothers, Inc. faced four alleged violations of mine safety standards at its Crusher No. 9101 operation. The company filed its answer late and did not respond to the judge's order to show cause or otherwise communicate about the case. Judge George A. Koutras entered default judgment and made the Secretary's proposed civil penalties final. The company was ordered to pay $80, consisting of four $20 penalties.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standards: 30 C.F.R. §§ 56.6042, 56.9022, 56.14007, and 56.1800(a)(b)
  • Outcome: Default judgment was entered, and four proposed $20 penalties were assessed as a final $80 civil penalty.
  • Key point: A respondent that fails to answer and does not respond to an order to show cause may be held in default, with the proposed penalties made final.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. HELDENFELS BROTHERS
DDATE:
19871113
TTEXT:

Page 2

~1944

              Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
                     Office of Administrative Law Judges

SECRETARY OF LABOR, CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), Docket No. CENT 87-39-M
PETITIONER A.C. No. 41-00035-05503
v.
Crusher No. 9101
HELDENFELS BROTHERS, INC.,
RESPONDENT

                                DEFAULT DECISION

Before: Judge Koutras

                              Statement of the Case

 This proceeding concerns proposals for assessment of civil

penalties filed by the petitioner against the respondent pursuant
to section 110(a) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of
1977, 30 U.S.C. 820(a), seeking civil penalty assessments in
the amount of $80 for four alleged violations of certain
mandatory safety standards found in Part 56, Title 30, Code of
Federal Regulations. The citations and proposed civil penalty
assessments are as follows:
30 C.F.R.
Citation No. Date Section Assessments

    2868074        12/04/86          56.6042          $ 20
    2868076        12/04/86          56.9022          $ 20
    2868077        12/04/86          56.14007         $ 20
    2868078        12/04/86          56.1800(a)(b)    $ 20

 On October 2, 1987, I issued an Order to Show Cause

directing the respondent to state why it should not be held in
default and a summary order entered in accordance with the
applicable Commission rules because of its failure to file a
timely answer in this case. The order directed the respondent to
respond by October 17, 1987. On October 21, 1987, respondent's
counsel contacted me by telephone, and after explaining the
circumstances concerning the respondent's failure to file

Page 3

~1945
a timely response, counsel indicated that he was contemplating
paying the proposed civil penalty assessments in full, or in the
alternative, would attempt to settle the matter with the
petitioner's counsel. Respondent's counsel was advised that he
would have an additional week within which to decide how to
proceed further, but that any decision in this regard should be
made within that time frame, and that he was to communicate his
decision to me in writing, with a written response to my
show-cause order. On November 9, 1987, petitioner's counsel
advised me that the respondent has not further communicated with
his office, and the respondent's counsel has not communicated
with me, nor has he filed any written response to my show cause
order.

                                 Discussion

 The applicable Commission Rules in this case provide as

follows:

  29 C.F.R.      2700.27

           2700.27 Proposal for a penalty.

             (a) When to file. Within 45 days of receipt
         of a timely notice of contest of a notification
         of proposed assessment of penalty, the Secretary
         shall file a proposal for a penalty with the
         Commission.

  29 C.F.R.      2700.28

           2700.28 Answer.

              A party against whom a penalty is sought shall
         file and serve an answer within 30 days after
         service of a copy of the proposal on the party.
         An answer shall include a short and plain statement
         of the reasons why each of the violations cited in
         the proposal is contested, including a statement as
         to whether a violation occurred and whether a hearing
         is requested.

29 C.F.R. 2700.63

           2700.63 Summary disposition of proceedings.

          (a) Generally. When a party fails to comply
     with an order of a judge or these

Page 4

~1946
rules, an order to show cause shall be
directed to the party before the entry of
any order of default or dismissal.

           (b) Penalty proceedings. When the judge
      finds the respondent in default in a civil
      penalty proceeding, the judge shall shall also
      enter a summary order assessing the proposed
      penalties as final, and directing that such
      penalties be paid.

 The pleadings in this case reflect that the respondent was

served with a copy of the petitioner's complaint proposing the
assessment of civil penalties for the alleged violations in
question on April 1, 1987. Respondent's answer was received by
the petitioner on July 27, 1987. As a result of the untimely
answer, petitioner filed a motion for default judgment, and my
show-cause order followed.

 The respondent has failed to respond in writing to my show-

cause order, and its counsel has not further communicated with
me in this matter. Under the circumstances, I conclude and
find that the respondent is in default and has waived its right
to be further heard in this matter. I see no reason why the
petitioner's proposed civil penalty assessments should not be
made the final order of the Commission, and the motion for
default judgment IS GRANTED.

                                 ORDER

 Pursuant to Commission Rule 63, 29 C.F.R.   2700.63,

judgment by default is herewith entered in favor of the
petitioner, and the respondent IS ORDERED to immediately pay to
the petitioner the sum of $80, as the final civil penalty
assessment for the violations in question.

                             George A. Koutras
                             Administrative Law Judge

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1987, and it binds only those parties. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.