Secretary of Labor v. Extra Energy, Inc. (Commission decision, October 25, 1996)

Plain-English summary

Extra Energy asked the Commission to reconsider its denial of the company's petition for discretionary review of an ALJ decision. The Commission majority reopened the matter under Rule 60(b)(6), granted reconsideration, directed review, and set the case for oral argument. The order does not decide the underlying mine safety violations or penalty. Chairman Jordan dissented, concluding that Extra Energy had not alleged a sufficient reason for relief from the final judgment.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. §§ 823(c) and 823(d)(1)
• Outcome: Reconsideration granted, review directed, and oral argument ordered.
• Key point: The Commission majority reopened the matter under Rule 60(b)(6), while the dissent would have denied relief.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 1730 K STREET NW, 6TH FLOOR
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006

October 25, 1996

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
:
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
:
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)
:
:
v. : Docket No. WEVA 96-13
:
EXTRA ENERGY, INC.
:

BEFORE: Jordan, Chairman; Marks and Riley, Commissioners1

ORDER
DIRECTION FOR REVIEW

BY: Marks and Riley, Commissioners

On October 17, 1996, Extra Energy, Inc. (“Extra Energy”) filed a motion for reconsideration of the Commission’s October 2, 1996 denial of Extra Energy’s Petition for Discretionary Review (“PDR”). Extra Energy’s PDR sought review of Administrative Law Judge Gary Melick’s decision dated August 23, 1996 in this case. Pursuant to section 113(d)(1) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1), the judge’s decision became a final decision of the Commission forty days after its issuance.

Upon consideration of the motion, and under Rule 60(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. Pro., we reopen this matter, grant the motion for reconsideration, direct review, and set this case down for oral

1
Pursuant to section 113(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 823(c), this panel of three Commissioners has been designated to exercise the powers of the Commission.

Page 2

argument. An order setting the date and terms of oral argument will issue at an appropriate time.

________
Marc Lincoln Marks, Commissioner

________
James C. Riley, Commissioner

2

Page 3

Chairman Jordan, dissenting:

The judge’s August 23, 1996 decision in this case became a final decision of the Commis- sion forty days after its issuance. The operator has asked us to reopen these proceedings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60(b)(6), which permits relief from a final judgment or order for “any . . . reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” However, because the respondent has failed to allege any rationale for relief under this rule, I find no adequate basis on which to grant it, and would therefore deny this motion.

________
Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman

3