Secretary of Labor v. Clayton's Calcium Inc.
Secretary of Labor v. Clayton's Calcium Inc. (FMSHRC WEST 2014-966 M): Default order was a nullity because the operator did answer
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 2016, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Clayton's Calcium was held in default after the Chief Administrative Law Judge concluded it never answered MSHA's petition for civil penalties. The company had in fact filed a timely response to the show-cause order, but it wrote the docket number of a different case involving the same mine, WEST 2015-527, on the filing. The Secretary did not oppose reopening and confirmed the answer had arrived, and Commission records showed the misfiled response was received on May 26, 2015, inside the deadline. Because the operator had actually complied with the order on time, the Commission held it was never in default and the default order was a nullity. That made the motion to reopen unnecessary, so the Commission dismissed it as moot and sent the case back to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for normal proceedings. The practical lesson for operators is that a filing docketed under the wrong case number can still count as timely when the record shows the agency received it.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard(s): None; the order rests on the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., and the Commission's Procedural Rules, 29 C.F.R. Part 2700.
- Outcome: The default order was declared a nullity, the reopening motion was dismissed as moot, and the case was remanded to the Chief Administrative Law Judge.
- Key point: An operator that timely files its answer is not in default even if the filing carries the wrong docket number, so no relief from default is needed.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
FEDERAL
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
1331
PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W., SUITE 520N
WASHINGTON,
DC 20004-1710
SECRETARY
OF LABOR,
MINE
SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION
(MSHA),
v.
CLAYTON’S
CALCIUM INC.,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Docket
No. WEST 2014-966-M
A.C.
No. 10-02169-357939
BEFORE: Jordan,
Chairman; Young, Cohen, and Althen, 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. (2012) (“Mine Act”). On July 17, 2015, the Commission received from
Clayton’s Calcium, Inc. (“Clayton”) a motion seeking to reopen a penalty
assessment proceeding and relieve it from the Default Order entered against it.
On
April 29, 2015, the Chief Administrative Law Judge issued an Order to Show
Cause in response to Clayton’s failure to answer the Secretary of Labor’s September
9, 2014 Petition for Assessment of Civil Penalty. By its terms, the Order to
Show Cause was deemed a Default Order on June 1, 2015, when it appeared that
the operator had not filed an answer within 30 days.
Clayton claims that it timely responded
to the Order to Show Cause but that it used the docket number for another case
(WEST 2015-527) involving the same mine. The Secretary does not oppose the
request to reopen and confirms receipt of the timely answer. Commission records
confirm that the response bearing the incorrect docket number was received on
May 26, 2015.
Having
reviewed Clayton’s request and the Secretary’s response, we conclude that the
operator was not in default under the terms of the Order to Show Cause as
it timely complied with the Order. See Vulcan Construction Materials , 33
FMSHRC 2164 (Sept. 2011). This renders the Default Order a nullity. Accordingly,
the operator’s motion to reopen is moot, and 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 G. Young
Michael G. Young, Commissioner
/s/ Robert F. Cohen, Jr.
Robert F. Cohen Jr., Commissioner
/s/ William I. Althen
William I. Althen, Commissioner
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read Commission precedent from 2016. Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.