Bonita Grande Aggregates

Plain-English summary

Bonita Grande Properties acquired the mine after a penalty case had already begun and later learned that the case had gone into default. The previous owner said it timely answered the Secretary's penalty petition but sent the answer only to an MSHA representative because it did not know a copy also had to go to the Commission. The previous owner also reported no record of receiving the show-cause order. The Secretary did not oppose reopening, although the petition had included filing instructions. The Commission vacated the default in the interest of justice and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1) and (d)(2)(A)(i); 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.1(b), 2700.69(b), and 2700.70(a)
• Outcome: The default order was vacated and the penalty proceeding was remanded to the Chief ALJ.
• Key point: A change in ownership and a timely answer sent to the wrong recipient can support relief from a final default.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

601 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW

SUITE 9500

WASHINGTON, DC 20001

June 25, 2012

SECRETARY OF LABOR, 

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH 

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) 

v.

BONITA GRANDE AGGREGATES 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. SE 2010-460-M

A.C. No. 08-01198-210365

BEFORE: Jordan, Chairman; Duffy, Young, Cohen, and Nakamura, Commissioners

ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION:

This matter arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C.
§ 801 et seq. (2006) (“Mine Act”). On September 30, 2011, the Commission received from
Bonita Grande Properties, L.P. d/b/a Bonita Grande Aggregates (“Bonita”) a motion seeking to
reopen a penalty assessment proceeding and relieve it from the order of default entered against it.

On March 17, 2011, Chief Administrative Law Judge Lesnick issued an Order to Show
Cause which by its terms became an Order of Default if the operator did not file an answer within
30 days. This Order to Show Cause was issued in response to Bonita’s failure to answer the
Secretary’s June 2, 2010 Petition for Assessment of Civil Penalty. The Commission did not
receive Bonita’s answer within 30 days, so the order of default became effective on April 18,
2011.

Bonita asserts that it became the new owner of the mine in question in April 2011, and
just recently became aware of the outstanding citations. Bonita further states that the previous
owner submitted a timely answer to the Secretary’s Petition for Assessment on June 29, 2010,
but mailed it to the Mine Safety and Health Administration Conference Litigation
Representative, as it was not aware it also had to mail a copy to the Commission. The previous
owner also claims to have no record of receiving the show cause order. Moreover, the new
owner notified the Commission by email that a representative of the U.S. Department of Treasury
will contact the previous owner for the debt collection.

The Secretary does not oppose the request to reopen and notes that her penalty petition
advised the operator to file its answer with the Commission with a copy to the Secretary.

The judge’s jurisdiction in this matter terminated when the default occurred. 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). Consequently, the judge’s order here has become a final
decision of the Commission.

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 mistake, inadvertence, or excusable
neglect. 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”); Jim Walter Res., Inc., 15 FMSHRC 782,
786-89 (May 1993) (“JWR”). 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 Bonita’s request and the Secretary’s response, in the interest of justice,
we hereby reopen the proceeding and vacate the Order of Default. Accordingly, this case is
remanded to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings pursuant to the Mine
Act and the Commission’s Procedural Rules, 29 C.F.R. Part 2700.

/s/ Mary Lu Jordan

Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman

/s/ Michael F. Duffy

Michael F. Duffy, Commissioner

/s/ Michael G. Young

Michael G. Young, Commissioner

/s/ Robert F. Cohen, Jr.

Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

/s/ Patrick K. Nakamura

Patrick K. Nakamura, Commissioner

Distribution:

James H. Crumbie

25501 Bonita Grande Drive

Bonita Springs, FL 34135

[email protected]

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2220

Arlington, VA 22209-2296

Melanie Garris

Office of Civil Penalty Compliance

MSHA

U.S. Dept. Of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., 25th Floor

Arlington, VA 22209-3939

Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Lesnick

Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

601 New Jersey Avenue, N. W., Suite 9500

Washington, D.C. 20001-2021