Martin Sales & Processing (ALJ decision, March 29, 1993)

Martin Sales & Processing (FMSHRC WEVA 92-1008 and related dockets): Summary default decision later vacated

Decision type

ALJ decision

Dockets

WEVA 92-1008, WEVA 92-1096, WEVA 92-1097, WEVA 92-1108

Decided

March 29, 1993

Presiding judge

George A. Koutras

Outcome

Other

Precedential status

Reviewed by the Commission

Checked against source

2026-08-14

Cited standards

30 U.S.C. § 820(a) 30 C.F.R. § 75.1704 30 C.F.R. § 75.1721(a) 30 C.F.R. § 75.321 30 C.F.R. § 75.1721(b)(6) 30 C.F.R. § 75.1721(b)(7) 30 C.F.R. § 75.1721(b)(8) 30 C.F.R. § 75.1721(b)(9) 30 C.F.R. § 75.1721(c)(1) 30 C.F.R. § 49.2(a)(1) 30 C.F.R. § 75.1200 30 C.F.R. § 75.508 30 C.F.R. § 75.300 30 C.F.R. § 75.305 30 C.F.R. § 75.306 30 C.F.R. § 75.512 30 C.F.R. § 75.1704-2(c)(1) 30 C.F.R. § 77.800-1(a) 30 C.F.R. § 70.400 30 C.F.R. § 75.212(c) 30 C.F.R. § 75.900 30 C.F.R. § 75.901 30 C.F.R. § 75.503 30 C.F.R. § 70.207(a) 30 C.F.R. § 75.1725(a) 30 C.F.R. § 75.220(a)(1) 30 C.F.R. § 75.316 30 C.F.R. § 75.400 30 C.F.R. § 75.2030 30 C.F.R. § 75.204(f)(7) 30 C.F.R. § 75.1106-5(a) 30 C.F.R. § 75.523-2(a)(2) 30 C.F.R. § 75.516 30 C.F.R. § 75.1100-2(e)(2) 30 C.F.R. § 75.1722(a) 30 C.F.R. § 75.1100-2(a)(1) 30 C.F.R. § 75.1103-4(a)(3) 30 C.F.R. § 75.1403 30 C.F.R. § 75.515 30 C.F.R. § 75.523-3(b)(2) 30 C.F.R. § 75.513-1(a)(1) 30 C.F.R. § 75.208 29 C.F.R. § 2700.63

Official source

Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

PDF

View Official PDF

What's the rule today?

This ALJ decision was superseded by the Commission's decision in the same case. Ezel starts from the controlling decision and answers your situation under current law, with citations.

ALJ decision, later reviewed by the Commission

This decision was issued by an FMSHRC Administrative Law Judge, but it was not the final word in the case: the Commission directed review, and the Commission's decision is the one citable as precedent.

Read the Commission's decision in this case

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

Martin Sales & Processing failed to answer the Secretary's discovery requests and did not comply with orders directing it to respond. Judge George A. Koutras found the operator in default and entered summary default judgment for the Secretary on four consolidated dockets. The order directed immediate payment of the proposed civil penalty assessments, which the later record identifies as $32,166 for 51 violations. The Commission later vacated these initial default decisions and remanded the matters for further proceedings.

Decision snapshot

Cited standard(s): The release lists mandatory standards in Parts 49, 70, 75, and 77 of Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Outcome: Summary default judgment was entered and the listed proposed penalties were assessed, but the Commission later vacated the default decisions and remanded.
Key point: Failure to respond to discovery orders and an order to show cause can result in summary default, subject to Commission review.
Subsequent review: The Commission later vacated the initial default decisions in weva-92-1008-commission.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. MARTIN SALES & PROCESSING DDATE: 19930329 TTEXT:

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
: CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. WEVA 92-1008 Petitioner : A.C. No. 46-02208-03595
v. :
: Docket No. WEVA 92-1096
MARTIN SALES & PROCESSING, : A.C. No. 46-02208-03597 R Respondent :
: Docket No. WEVA 92-1097
: A.C. No. 46-02208-03598 R
:
: Docket No. WEVA 92-1108
: A.C. No. 46-02208-03599 R
:
: Mine No. 1

SUMMARY DEFAULT DECISIONS

Before: Judge Koutras

Statement of the Proceedings

These proceedings concern proposals for assessment of civil penalties filed by the petitioner against the respondent pursuant to section 110(a) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 820(a), seeking civil penalty assessments for fifty-one (51), alleged violations of certain mandatory safety and health standards found in Parts 70, 75, and 77, Title 30, Code of Federal Regulations. The respondent, through counsel, filed answers to the proposals and three of the cases were consolidated for hearing in Charleston, West Virginia, on Wednesday, February 10, 1993. The hearing was continued at the request of the respondent, and after the addition of another case, a consolidated hearing was scheduled in Charleston, West Virginia, on Friday, March 19, 1993. The hearing was subsequently cancelled on February 24, 1993, and an Order to Show Cause was issued by me after the petitioner filed a Motion for Summary Order of Default because of the failure by the respondent to respond to its pre-trial discovery requests.

The petitioner initiated timely discovery in these matters pursuant to the Commission's applicable Rules found at Part 2700, Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, and served the respondent with interrogatories, requests for admissions, and requests for the production of documents. Of particular interest to the petitioner was the apparent position taken by the respondent that it is financially unable to pay any of the proposed civil penalty assessments. This position was stated in a January 24, 1993, letter from the respondent's counsel to the petitioner's counsel, with two attachments itemizing the respondent's debts. The letter states as follows:

Pursuant to our previous discussions, I have enclosed a copy of financial information from my client's bank, my Bank of Mingo. Additionally, as you are aware, my client is no longer operating the mine. As a result of this idle status of the mine, my client has no income to pay any debts at this time. If additional information is required regarding the ability of my client to pay, please contact me at your convenience.

On January 5, 1993, I issued an Order compelling the respondent to answer the petitioner's discovery requests and I took note of the fact that the petitioner's requests to the respondent were timely filed, and the respondent had ample time to respond and advanced no objections or excuses for failing to fully respond. Thereafter, on January 11, 1993, I issued another Order directing the respondent to respond to the petitioner's second request for production of documents.

The petitioner's counsel states that she has repeatly attempted to contact the respondent's counsel regarding these cases, and has sent counsel letter asking him to respond to her discovery requests, all to no avail. The only response from the respondent's counsel appears to be the aforementioned letter dated January 24, 1993. With regard to that letter, petitioner's counsel states that she received the letter on March 5, 1993, and that the attachments post-date the cover letter. Petitioner's counsel further states that the letter and attachments merely show that the respondent has outstanding debts, do not answer the bulk of her discovery requests, and do not establish that the respondent does not have the means to pay the assessments.

In view of the respondent's failure to respond to its discovery requests, the petitioner filed a motion for summary order of default on February 25, 1993. That same day, I issued an Order directing the respondent to show cause as to why it should not be held in default and immediately ordered to pay the proposed civil penalty assessments because of its failure to respond to the petitioner's discovery requests and for its failure to comply with my previously issued orders directing it to reply to those requests. The respondent has not replied to my Order.

Discussion

Commission Rule 63, 29 C.F.R. 2700.63, provides for the summary disposition of proceedings, and it states as follows:

(a) Generally. When a party fails to comply with an order of a judge or these rules, an order to show cause shall be directed to the party before the entry of any order of default or dismissal.

(b) Penalty proceedings. When the Judge finds the respondent in default in a civil penalty proceeding, the Judge shall also enter a summary order assessing the proposed penalties as final, and directing that such penalties be paid.

The respondent has failed to respond to my Order to Show Cause of February 25, 1993. It has also failed to adequately respond to my previous orders compelling it to respond to the discovery requests filed by the petitioner. Under all of these circumstances, I conclude and find that the respondent is in default and the petitioner's motion for summary decision IS GRANTED.

ORDER

Summary default judgment is entered in favor of the petitioner, and the respondent IS ORDERED to immediately pay to the petitioner (MSHA), the following proposed civil penalty assessments as the final civil penalty assessments for the contested violations in these proceedings:

Docket No. WEVA 92-1008

30 C.F.R.
Order No. Date Section Assessment

   3578142       2/10/92        75.1704             $3,500

Docket No. WEVA 92-1096