FMC Corporation (Commission decision, June 26, 2012)
FMC Corporation (FMSHRC WEST 2010-241-M): Default vacated after answer reached the Secretary
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 2012, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
FMC Corporation asked the Commission to reopen a penalty case after its failure to answer a penalty petition led to a default. FMC said it timely responded to the show-cause order, and the Secretary confirmed that the regional solicitor received a copy of the answer. The answer did not show that FMC also sent it to the Commission as instructed. Because default is a harsh remedy and relief may be available for mistake or excusable neglect, the Commission reopened the proceeding in the interest of justice. It vacated the default 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: An answer that reached the Secretary but apparently was not sent to the Commission can still support reopening when the record shows good cause for relief from default.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
601 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW
SUITE 9500
WASHINGTON, DC 20001
June 26, 2012
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)
v.
FMC CORPORATION
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Docket No. WEST 2010-241-M
A.C. No. 48-00152-201760
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 December 2, 2011, the Commission received from FMC Corporation (“FMC”) a motion seeking to reopen a penalty assessment proceeding and relieve it from the order of default entered against it.
On March 18, 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 FMC’s failure to answer the Secretary’s December 24, 2009 Petition for Assessment of Civil Penalty. The Commission did not receive FMC’s answer within 30 days, so the order of default became effective on April 18, 2011.
FMC asserts that it timely responded to the Show Cause Order. The Secretary does not oppose the request to reopen and notes that the Denver Regional Solicitor’s Office indicated that it received a copy of the answer. However, the answer does not indicate that it was also sent to the Commission, as instructed in the penalty petition.
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 FMC’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 Pearce
FMC Corp.
P.O. Box 872
Green River, WY 82935
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
Does this precedent still control your case?
Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation 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