FMSHRC ALJ decision Docket CENT 92-202-M, CENT 92-204-M, CENT 92-205-M Decided January 15, 1993 Procedural Judge Michael A. Lasher, Jr.

Little Rock Quarry Company, Incorporated

Little Rock Quarry Company, Incorporated (FMSHRC CENT 92-202-M, CENT 92-204-M, and CENT 92-205-M): Proceedings dismissed for failure to prosecute

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1993 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 1993
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 Commission precedent. 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

MSHA brought three civil penalty proceedings against Little Rock Quarry Company, Incorporated. Judge Michael A. Lasher had ordered MSHA to show good cause for failing to comply with a prehearing order and to provide information about whether the cases might settle. MSHA did not provide the required response by the deadline. The Judge concluded that MSHA had abandoned its prosecution and dismissed all three proceedings.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): None.
  • Outcome: The three civil penalty proceedings were dismissed after the Secretary failed to comply with the Judge's orders.
  • Key point: A party that initiates a proceeding must provide the case-status information required by a prehearing order or risk dismissal for abandonment.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

      FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
                    1244 SPEER BOULEVARD #280
                            DENVER, CO 80204-3582
                      (303) 844-5266/FAX (303) 844-5268

                                 January 15, 1993

SECRETARY OF LABOR, : CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. CENT 92-202-M
Petitioner : A.C. No. 03-01475-05526
:
: Docket No. CENT 92-204-M
v. : A.C. No. 03-01475-05528
:
: Docket No. CENT 92-205-M
LITTLE ROCK QUARRY COMPANY, : A.C. No. 03-01475-05529
INCORPORATED, :
Respondent : De Roche Creek Quarry

            DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING

Before: Judge Lasher

 Petitioner MSHA, by my Order to Show Cause dated December 3,

1992, and subsequent Order of December 11, 1992, was given until
December 31, 1992, to show good cause for its failure to comply
with the Prehearing Order of September 14, 1992. As I have re-
peatedly advised and explained to counsel in the Solicitor's Dal-
las office over the past two years, one of the purposes of this
Prehearing Order is to screen cases to determine if they are
going to settle before setting them for hearing. Setting cases
for hearing requires a great deal of time and work on the part of
our limited secretarial staff. Administrative law judges who ap-
proach their docket by automatically setting their cases without
screening them do so selfishly both as to the secretaries and
fellow judges. Our office would not function efficiently if we
all did it. This has been explaIned at length to the Secretary's
counsel. 1

 The Commission has set some form of time limitations for its

judges. Handling cases out of the Dallas office makes it impos-


1     The Secretary is not being required to settle the cases by my Pre-

hearing Order. It is required, as the party initiating the proceeding before
the Commission, to initiate discussion and communication with the Respondent
to de-termine if the matter will settle. Normally, a large percentage of
cases do settle if the Secretary's Solicitor proceeds responsibly and in good
faith.

sible to comply with such. Over the past two years, I have found
it necessary to plead with several of the attorneys--not all--in
this office to get some kind of feedback on the status of cases.
As I pointed out in the Order to Show Cause:

      The situation has matured to the point that it is
          impossible to process proceedings, in many of which
          there is not even a minimum level of response. This
          is necessary for the Commission's work to be done.

In view of the continuing failure of the Petitioner, I conclude
that Petitioner has abandoned its prosecution in these three
docket and these proceedings are DISMISSED.

                                    Michael A. Lasher, Jr.
                                    Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

Michael H. Olvera, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department
of Labor, 525 Griffin Street, Suite 501, Dallas, TX 75202
(Certified Mail)

Mr. Ike Carter, Jr., President, LITTLE ROCK QUARRY, P.O. Box 548,
Benton AR 72015 (Certified Mail)

ek

Michael H. Olvera, Esq. Office of the Solicitor U.S. Department of Labor
525 Griffin Street #501, Dallas, TX 75202
(Certified Mail)

Mr. Ike Carter, Jr., President LITTLE ROCK QUARRY, Post Office Box 548,
Benton AR 72015 (Certified Mail)

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1993, 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.