U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C.  20210 USDOL/OALJ REPORTER PAGE 1 In the Matter of: KEVIN J. HUSEN,    ARB CASE NOS. 05-115        05-130 COMPLAINANT,     ALJ CASE NO.  2005-STA-8 v.                                 DATE:  June 29, 2006 WIDE OPEN TRUCKING, INC.,   and   JEREMY RUNYON, RESPONDENTS. BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD Appearances: For the Complainant: Paul O. Taylor, Esq., Truckers Justice Center, Burnsville, Minnesota FINAL DECISION AND ORDER             These  cases  arise  under  the  employee  protection  provisions  of  the  Surface
Transportation  Assistance  Act  (STAA)  of  1982,  as  amended.¹    Kevin  J.  Husen  filed  a
complaint   with   the   Occupational   Safety   and   Health   Administration   (OSHA)   on
September  27,  2004,  alleging  that  Wide  Open  Trucking,  Inc.²  and  Jeremy  Runyon
“violated the employee protection provisions of the STAA by retaliating against him for                                                 1   49 U.S.C.A. § 31105 (West 1997). 2 Wide Open Trucking, Inc. is a company run solely by Jeremy Runyon.  R. D. & O. at 4, citing Affidavit of Kevin J. Husen in Support of Motion for Summary Decision.

USDOL/OALJ REPORTER PAGE 2 notifying  the  Federal  Motor  Carrier  Safety  Administration  of  Respondents’  hiring  and
drug testing practices.”  Recommended Decision and Order Awarding Default Judgment
(R. D. & O.) at 1.             Neither Wide Open Trucking, Inc. nor Jeremy Runyon appeared before OSHA or
the Office of Administrative Law Judges to respond to Husen’s complaint.  R. D. & O. at
1-4.  On June 23, 2005, the Administrative Law Judge issued his R. D. & O. awarding
default judgment to Husen and assessing lost wages.  On July 26, 2005, the ALJ issued a
Recommended  Supplemental  Decision  and  Order  Approving  Attorney’s  Fee  and  Case
Expenses.    These  matters  came  to  the  Administrative  Review  Board  pursuant  to  the
automatic   review   procedures   of   the   STAA   implementing   regulations.      29   C.F.R.
§§1978.109(a) and (c)(1) (2005).  We issued Notices of Review and Briefing Schedules
for these cases on June 28, 2005, and July 28, 2005.  None of the parties filed briefs. On   November   7,   2005,   we   received   Husen’s   Motion   to   Stay   Proceeding, requesting that the Board “stay this case until such time as there is either a discharge of
Jeremy  Runyon,  a  denial  of  discharge,  or  a  determine  [sic]  that  this  claim  is  not
dischargeable ...”.  The Motion incorporated a copy of Runyon’s bankruptcy notice (Case
Number 05-49315-RJK) issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Minnesota.                We  issued  an  Order  to  Show  Cause  on  June  9,  2006,  indicating  that  the
Bankruptcy Court had granted Runyon a discharge under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy
Code, 11 U.S.C.A. § 727 (West 2004).  The Order directed the parties to show cause why
Husen’s complaint should or should not be dismissed.  Husen responded to the Order on
June  27,  2006  by  stating  that  he  “does  not  oppose  the  dismissal  of  this  proceeding.”  
Husen’s response does not indicate why, in light of the ruling of the Bankruptcy Court,
we  should  proceed  to  the  merits  of  his  complaint.    Accordingly,  we  DISMISS  the
complaint with prejudice. SO ORDERED. WAYNE C. BEYER Administrative Appeals Judge M. CYNTHIA DOUGLASS Chief Administrative Appeals Judge