Secretary of Labor v. Blackjewel, LLC (ALJ decision, August 19, 2019)

Secretary of Labor v. Blackjewel, LLC (FMSHRC VA 2019-86): Ninety-seven violations resolved by default

Decision type
ALJ decision
Dockets
VA 2019-86, VA 2019-105, VA 2019-121, VA 2019-87, VA 2019-88, VA 2019-97, VA 2019-116, VA 2019-117, VA 2019-124, VA 2019-96, VA 2019-113, KENT 2019-227
Decided
August 19, 2019
Presiding judge
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-07-31
Cited standards

Apply this to your situation

This order from 2019 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 2019
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 order, not Commission precedent
This decision by a FMSHRC Administrative Law Judge became the final decision of the Commission 40 days after issuance because the Commission did not direct review (30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1)). 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

These 12 consolidated dockets involved 97 alleged violations at five Blackjewel mines and proposed penalties totaling $125,543. Blackjewel missed the deadline for its prehearing report and initially said that pending bankruptcy proceedings meant it would not answer the judge's show-cause order. The company later requested a stay but did not explain why the bankruptcy prevented it from filing the required report or seeking an extension. Judge Priscilla M. Rae entered default, dismissed Blackjewel's contests and hearing requests, and ordered payment of the full $125,543.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(d)
  • Outcome: Blackjewel was found in default, its contests were dismissed, and it was ordered to pay $125,543 for 97 violations.
  • Key point: A bankruptcy-related stay request does not excuse failure to comply with prehearing and show-cause orders without a supported explanation.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
REVIEW COMMISSION

OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

1331 PENNSYLVANIA
AVE., N.W., SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON, DC
20004-1710

TELEPHONE: 202-434-9956
/ FAX: 202-434-9949

August 19, 2019

SECRETARY
OF LABOR

MINE
SAFETY AND HEALTH     

ADMINISTRATION
(MSHA),

Petitioner,

v.

BLACKJEWEL
LLC,

Respondent.

CIVIL
PENALTY PROCEEDINGS

Docket
No. VA 2019-86

A.C.
No. 44-03088-482802

Docket
No. VA 2019-105

A.C.
No. 44-03088-486702

Docket
No. VA 2019-121

A.C.
No. 44-03088-490733

Mine:
P-7 Pigeon Creek

Docket
No. VA 2019-87

A.C.
No. 44-07052-482807

Docket
No. VA 2019-88

A.C.
No. 44-07052-482807

Mine:
D-10 Dorchester

Docket
No. VA 2019-97

A.C.
No. 44-07220-484725

Docket
No. VA 2019-116

A.C.
No. 44-07220-486712

Docket
No. VA 2019-117

A.C.
No. 44-07220-486712

Docket
No. VA 2019-124

A.C.
No. 44-07220-490741

Mine:
D-17

Docket
No. VA 2019-96

A.C.
No. 44-07142-484723

Docket
No. VA 2019-113

A.C.
No. 44-07142-486710

Mine:
P-12 Flat Rock

Docket
No. KENT 2019-227

A.C.
No. 15-18647-486602

Mine:
D-30 Clover Fork

ORDER OF DEFAULT
AND ORDER TO PAY

This case is before me upon a petition
for assessment of civil penalties under section 105(d) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 815(d).

These dockets involve 97 alleged
violations and total proposed penalties of $125,543.00. On July 29, 2019, these dockets were consolidated for a hearing that was to occur on August 20-22, 2019. When each docket was assigned to me, I issued a prehearing order directing the parties to submit prehearing reports no less than 20 days before the commencement of the hearing. The parties were further advised that failure to comply with the terms of the order could result in sanctions. The deadline for submitting a prehearing report for these dockets was July 31, 2019. Respondent failed to submit a prehearing report.

On August 12, 2019, I issued an Amended Order
to Show Cause directing Respondent to explain why an order of default should not be issued against it given its failure to comply with my prehearing order. I held a conference call with the parties on August 13, 2019 to discuss Respondent’s proposed course of action regarding the Amended Order to Show Cause. Respondent’s counsel relayed that in light of pending bankruptcy proceedings, no response to the Amended Order to Show Cause would be forthcoming, unless he was directed to do so, and that Respondent would expect the court to do what is expected based upon an unanswered show cause order (dockets would be defaulted). Based on this representation, the consolidated hearing was vacated on August 14, 2019.

On August 15, 2019, the deadline for the
Amended Order to Show Cause, Respondent’s counsel informed my law clerk that Respondent would in fact be filing a response to that order. Respondent’s response to the Amended Order to Show Cause did not address the reason for its failure to submit a prehearing report by the deadline. Instead, Respondent noted the complexity of the pending bankruptcy proceedings and asked for the case to be stayed. There is no mention of how the complexity of the separate and distinct bankruptcy proceeding prevented the filing of the prehearing statement. There was no request for an extension of the due date for the prehearing order which this Court often grants. [1] In fact, it is the distinct impression of this Court that the Respondent has no intention of proceeding to hearing on these dockets.

Respondent has failed to comply with my Amended
Order to Show Cause. The Commission’s procedural rules permit a finding of default and summary disposition of a case after issuance of a show cause order when a party has failed to comply with a judge’s orders. 29 C.F.R. § 2700.66.

WHEREFORE , I find
Respondent to be IN DEFAULT .

Respondent’s notice of contest and
request for hearing are DISMISSED . Respondent is hereby ORDERED to pay a total penalty of $125,543.00 within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. [2]

/s/ Priscilla M. Rae

Priscilla M. Rae

Administrative Law Judge

Distribution (Electronic Mail &
U.S. Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested):

Robert
S. Wilson, Regional Counsel, U.S. Department of Labor, 201 12 th Street South, Arlington, VA 22202

James
K. McElroy, CLR, U.S. Department of Labor, MSHA, P.O. Box 560, Norton, VA 24273

David
A. Steffey, CLR, U.S. Department of Labor, MSHA, P.O. Box 560, Norton, VA 24273

Hagel
Campbell, CLR, U. S. Department of Labor, MSHA, P.O. Box 560, Norton, VA 24273

Joseph
Jacobs, Blackjewel, LLC, P.O. Box 249, Stanville, KY 41659

Peter
S. Gould, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, 1801 California Street, Suite 4900, Denver, Colorado 80202

Stephen
D. Lerner, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, 1801 California Street, Suite 4900, Denver, Colorado 80202

[1]
Respondent
has also requested a stay of all dockets during the bankruptcy proceedings. There are currently 679 violations totaling $1,028,754.00 pending before the judges of this Commission.

[2] Checks or money
orders should be sent to: Mine Safety & Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, P.O. Box 790390, St. Louis, MO 63179-0390.

What applies to your situation today?

This order bound one employer. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent against your facts, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace