Rushton Mining Company v. Secretary of Labor (ALJ decision, May 7, 1985)

Plain-English summary

Rushton Mining Company filed a complaint seeking declaratory relief or enforcement of a prior Commission final order involving its Rushton Mine. Rushton then asked to dismiss the complaint after the parties reached an agreement the judge described as satisfactory for the time being. Judge Charles C. Moore, Jr. declined to explain his earlier decision because his views would not bind a judge in a later case. He granted the motion and dismissed this complaint without prejudice. The order does not resolve the meaning of the earlier decision or identify a safety standard.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standards: None identified in the order.
• Outcome: Complaint dismissed without prejudice on Rushton's motion.
• Key point: The judge issued no declaratory ruling after the parties reached an agreement.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
RUSHTON MINING v. SOL (MSHA)
DDATE:
19850507
TTEXT:
~660
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges

RUSHTON MINING COMPANY,
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
CONTESTANT
RELIEF OR FOR ENFORCEMENT OF
A COMMISSION FINAL ORDER

v. Docket No: PENN 85-44-R
Order No: 2255375; 11/1/84
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
Rushton Mine
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
RESPONDENT

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before: Judge Moore

Rushton has moved to dismiss its Complaint in the above case. It appears that the parties have worked out an agreement that will be satisfactory for the time being. While I have views as to the meaning of my former decision, I see no point in expressing them. They would not be binding on whatever judge is assigned a similar case in the future.

The Motion is GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

Charles C. Moore, Jr.
Administrative Law Judge