Oak Grove Resources, LLC (Commission decision, May 18, 2005)

Plain-English summary

An ALJ entered default dismissals against Oak Grove Resources after it failed to answer the Secretary's penalty petitions and then failed to respond to show-cause orders. Oak Grove's safety director said the company was new to the assessment process, the employee who received certified mail did not understand its urgency, and the documents were not forwarded in time. The Commission treated Oak Grove's request to reopen as a timely petition for discretionary review and granted it. It remanded both proceedings to determine whether good cause justified the missed response and for further proceedings as appropriate.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.1(b), 2700.69(b), and 2700.70(a); 30 U.S.C. §§ 801, 823(d)(1), and 823(d)(2)(A)(i)
• Outcome: The Commission granted review and remanded the default dismissals for a good-cause determination.
• Key point: A request to reopen a default dismissal may be treated as a timely review petition, and the matter may be remanded when the operator presents a possible explanation for its failure to respond.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

601 New Jersey Avenue, NW,

Suite 9500

Washington, DC 20001

May 18, 2005

SECRETARY OF LABOR, :
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH : Docket No. SE 2005-27
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) : A.C. No. 01-00851-39186
:
v. : Docket No. SE 2005-35
: A.C. No. 01-00851-41158
OAK GROVE RESOURCES, LLC :

BEFORE: Duffy, Chairman; Jordan, Suboleski, and Young, Commissioners

DIRECTION FOR REVIEW AND ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION:

These civil penalty proceedings arise under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. (2000) ("Mine Act").1 On February 23, 2005, Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert Lesnick issued to Oak Grove Resources, LLC ("Oak Grove") two Orders to Show Cause for failure to answer the Secretary of Labor's petitions for assessment of penalty in both civil penalty proceedings. On April 13, 2005, Chief Judge Lesnick issued two Orders of Default dismissing these proceedings for failure to respond to the show cause orders.

On April 25, 2005, the Commission received from Oak Grove a letter signed by Michael E. Blevins, Oak Grove's Safety Director. Letter. In the letter, Blevins states that Pinn Oak Resources was founded on July 1, 2003 and employs persons who are unfamiliar with the assessment process. Id. He further states that the employee who signed for the certified mail did not understand the urgency in responding, and thus failed to forward the letters in a timely manner to the proper parties. Id. Blevins also states that he is not always in the office because he travels between two mines and requests that all future correspondence be addressed to him at his home address. Id. Oak Grove asks the Commission to grant its motion to reopen. Id. The Secretary has not taken a position on Oak Grove's request to reopen.

The judge's jurisdiction in this matter terminated when his orders were issued on April 13, 2005. 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). We construe Oak Grove's motion to be a timely filed petition, which we grant.

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, for example, a party could be entitled to relief from a final order of the Commission on the basis of inadvertence or mistake. 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"); Highlands Mining & Processing Co., 24 FMSHRC 685, 686 (July 2002). 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 permitted. See Coal Prep. Servs., Inc., 17 FMSHRC 1529, 1530 (Sept. 1995).

Having reviewed Oak Grove's request, in the interest of justice, we hereby remand this matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for a determination of whether good cause exists for Oak Grove's failure to timely respond to the judge's show cause order, and for further proceedings as appropriate.

Footnote:

1 Pursuant to Commission Procedural Rule 12, on our own motion, we hereby consolidate docket numbers SE 2005-27 and SE 2005-35, both captioned Oak Grove Resources, LLC and both involving issues similar to those addressed in this order. 29 C.F.R. § 2700.12.

______
Michael F. Duffy, Chairman

______
Mary Lu Jordan, Commissioner

______
Stanley C. Suboleski, Commissioner

______
Michael G. Young, Commissioner

Distribution:

Michael E. Blevins, Director of Safety

Oak Grove Resources, LLC

9501 Sundance Drive

Bridgeville, PA 15013

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., 22nd Floor

Arlington, VA 22209

Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Lesnick

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

601 New Jersey Avenue, Suite 9500

Washington, D.C. 20001