Spartan Mining Company, Inc. (Commission decision, May 8, 2008)

Plain-English summary

MSHA assessed penalties for 70 violations at Spartan Mining's Diamond Energy Mine. Spartan said it faxed the assessment to counsel, but a law-firm employee failed to route it to the attorney responsible for filing the contest. The Secretary did not oppose reopening but noted that Spartan waited about three months after a delinquency notice to seek relief. The Commission remanded for the Chief Administrative Law Judge to determine whether the filing error and later delay established good cause for reopening the final orders.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b); 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The reopening request was remanded for a determination of good cause and entitlement to relief.
• Key point: A law-office routing mistake may support relief, but the operator's promptness after learning of the default is also relevant.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND
HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

601 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW

SUITE 9500

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001

May 8, 2008

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

SPARTAN MINING COMPANY, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. WEVA 2008-704

A.C. No. 46-08738-127002

BEFORE: Duffy, Chairman; Jordan and Young, 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. (2000) (“Mine Act”). On March 14, 2008, the Commission received from Spartan Mining Company, Inc. (“Spartan”) a motion by counsel seeking to reopen a penalty assessment that had become a final order of the Commission pursuant to section 105(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 815(a).

Under section 105(a) of the Mine Act, an operator who wishes to contest a proposed penalty must notify the Secretary of Labor no later than 30 days after receiving the proposed penalty assessment. If the operator fails to notify the Secretary, the proposed penalty assessment is deemed a final order of the Commission. 30 U.S.C. § 815(a).

On September 12, 2007, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued a proposed assessment to Spartan as a result of 70 violations at the Diamond Energy Mine. According to Spartan, it faxed the proposed assessment to its attorneys. However, Spartan maintains that a clerical employee at the law firm mistakenly failed to transmit the assessment to the attorney responsible for filing the contest. Spartan states that the contest therefore was not timely filed and that it did not learn about the problem until it received a notice of unpaid penalties. The Secretary responds by noting that she notified Spartan by letter dated December 13, 2007, that the civil penalties were delinquent but that Spartan did not file a motion to reopen until March 14, 2008, some three months later. The Secretary states that once an operator discovers that it has failed to file a notice of contest through mistake or inadvertence, it should file a notice to reopen promptly. The Secretary concludes by stating that she does not oppose Spartan’s motion to reopen the assessment.

We have held that in appropriate circumstances, we possess jurisdiction to reopen uncontested assessments that have become final Commission orders under section 105(a). Jim Walter Res., Inc., 15 FMSHRC 782, 786-89 (May 1993) (“JWR”). In evaluating requests to reopen final section 105(a) 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 inadvertence or mistake. 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”); JWR, 15 FMSHRC at 787. 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 Spartan’s request, in the interests of justice, we remand this matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for a determination of whether good cause exists for Spartan’s failure to timely contest the penalty proposals and whether relief from the final orders should be granted. If it is determined that such relief is appropriate, this case shall proceed pursuant to the Mine Act and the Commission’s Procedural Rules, 29 C.F.R. Part 2700.

______

Michael F. Duffy, Chairman

______

Mary Lu Jordan, Commissioner

______

Michael G. Young, Commissioner

Distribution:

Ramonda C. Lyons, Esq.

Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP

P. O. Box 11887

900 Lee Street, Suite 600

Charleston, WV 25339

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2220

Arlington, VA 22209-2296

Myra James, Chief.

Office of Civil Penalty Compliance

MSHA

U.S. Department 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