Stoneway Concrete (ALJ decision, June 23, 1992)

Plain-English summary

Stoneway Concrete requested a hearing on a civil penalty matter, but the Solicitor did not file the penalty petition after repeated reminders. Judge Paul Merlin issued a show-cause order, and the Solicitor still did not respond. Because the case had been pending for more than a year without the required filing or response, the judge dismissed it.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standards: None stated in the order.
• Outcome: The civil penalty proceeding was dismissed for failure to file the penalty proposal and respond to the show-cause order.
• Key point: A party's repeated failure to comply with filing and show-cause orders can lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

I
1730 K STREET NW, 6TH FLOOR
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006

JUN 23 1992
SECRETARY OF LABOR, : CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. WEST 91-444-M
Petitioner : A. C. No. 45-03180-05585
:
v. : Black River Quarry
STONEWAY CONCRETE,
:
Respondent :

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Before: Judge Merlin
On May 22, 1991, the operator's request for a hearing was received by this Commission for docketing.
On November 13, 1991, my law clerk telephoned the Seattle Solicitor reminding him to file the penalty petition which he promised to do, but did not. On March 6, 1992, the Commission's Docket Office again telephoned the Solicitor but he did nothing.
Finally, on April 9, 1992, an order was issued directing the Solicitor to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to file a penalty proposal. The file contains the return receipt card showing that the Solicitor received a copy of this order on April 14, 1992. The Solicitor has failed to respond.
This case is now over a year old and the Commission has heard nothing from the Solicitor.
The Seattle Solicitor in this case routinely fails to respond to show cause orders, orders to submit information and other orders issued by the Chief Administrative Law Judge. It has been necessary to repeatedly remind him of orders which require him to take action. But even these reminders are of no effect. As I have stated on prior occasions, the Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge is simply too busy to keep calling and writing this Seattle Solicitor. In his constant and continu- al disregard of duly issued orders, this Solicitor stands alone.
His persistent dereliction of duty cannot be countenanced.

I In light of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that this case be DISMISSED.

T&&
Paul Merlin
Chief Administrative Law Judge

1045

a.-

Page 2

__-

Distribution:
Ernest Scott, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U. S. Department of
Labor, 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 945, Seattle, WA 98101 (Certi-
fied Mail)
Mr. Ike Brown, Stoneway Concrete, 9125 10th Avenue South, Seat- !
tle, WA 98108 (Certified Mail)
Douglas White, Esq., Counsel Trial Litigation, Office of the
Solicitor, U. S. Department of Labor, 4015 Wilson Boulevard,
Arlington, VA 22203 (Hand Delivered)

[illegible]

1046