Ribar Contracting, Inc., 2000-DBA-6 (ALJ May 29, 2002)

	U.S. Department of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges

www.oalj.dol.gov

[skip navigational links] Search | A-Z Index

Find It! on DOL | OALJ Home | OALJ Law Library | About Us

September 23, 2008 DOL Home > OALJ Home > USDOL/OALJ Reporter

USDOL/OALJ Reporter

Ribar Contracting, Inc., 2000-DBA-6 (ALJ May 29, 2002)

U.S. Department of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges
2 Executive Campus, Suite 450
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
(856) 486-3800
DOL Seal

Issue date: 29May2002

CASE NO.: 2000-DBA-00006

In the Matter of

Disputes concerning the payment
of prevailing wage rates by

RIBAR CONTRACTING, INC.
Prime Contractor

With respect to laborers and mechanics
employed by Prime Contract
No. DACW-51-95-C-0073

Proposed debarment for labor standards violations by:

RIBAR CONTRACTING, INC.
Prime Contractor

NAVA LISTOKIN
President

BENNY RIVEN
Owner

MOSHE AVNI
Vice-President

With respect to laborers and mechanics
employed by the Prime Contract on Contract
NO. DACW-51-95-C-0073

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On March 28, 2002, the Administrator filed a motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement allegedly reached in this matter. The Administrator argued that the parties entered into a binding written agreement to settle the case which should be enforced by this court. The Administrator further alleges that, in addition to orally agreeing to the settlement, an executed and written agreement is in the possession of the Respondents.

On April 26, 2002, the Respondents submitted their opposition to the Administrator's motion.¹ The Respondents argued that New York Law should be applied to this matter and that the Administrator has not proffered the agreement allegedly signed by the Respondents and their counsel. As such, any oral settlement agreement should not be enforced.

[Page 2]

On April 30, 2002, the Administrator rebutted the Respondents arguments by alleging that nowhere in the Respondents papers are there any denials that the Respondents signed the agreement. Further, the Administrator argues that Respondents do not deny that there is a written agreement.

Aside from the issues governing whether federal or state law applies to this matter, as well as the outcome using the applicable federal or state laws, the starting point in properly adjudicating this matter is in deciding whether or not a signed agreement does exist in this matter. According to the Administrator's motion and rebuttal, there is the possibility that a signed settlement agreement exists, but is not being proffered. Administrator stated in his motion to Enforce Settlement that on January 27, 2002, counsel for the Administrator spoke to counsel for Respondents who indicated that his clients had signed the papers and that he, Respondents' Counsel, should have them during the week of February 4-8, 2002. At the same time, the Respondents have not admitted or denied that a signed settlement agreement exists.

In light of these events, I issue the following Order.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that the Respondents address the existence of a signed settlement agreement in this matter. That is, the Respondents are to specifically admit or deny the existence of a signed settlement agreement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if a signed settlement agreement does exits, such agreement shall be produced to the Court.

Accordingly, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §725.465(c), it is ORDERED that Respondents shall have fifteen (15) days from the date of this order to fully comply with the stated requirements. Compliance shall be made by written statement, with any appropriate attachments, delivered to the undersigned administrative law judge at the Office of Administrative Law Judges, 2 Executive Campus, Suite 450, 2370 Route 70 West, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, 08002.

PAUL H. TEITLER
Administrative Law Judge

Cherry Hill, New Jersey

[ENDNOTES]

¹Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §18.40(a), Respondents may file an answer to the Administrator's March 28, 2002 motion within ten (10) days after this motion is served. However, on April 18, 2002, the Respondents requested, and received, an extension to April 26, 2002 in which to respond to the Administrator's Motion to Enforce Settlement. As such, the Respondent's opposition is within the allotted ten (10) day period.