Date: JAN 07 1985
Case No. 84-ERA-8

In the matter of

JIMMIE E. ABSON
    Complainant

    v.

HENRY J. KAISER COMPANY
    Respondent

On January 31, 1984 a notice was issued scheduling a hearing for February 21, 1984 regarding the complaint of Jimmie E. Abson, the complainant, against Henry J. Kaiser Company, the respondent, pursuant to the Energy Reorganization Act.

On February 9, 1984 Donald J. Mooney, Jr., Esq. withdrew as counsel for the complainant. On February 10, 1984 the complainant advised a member of my staff that Barbara Zuras, Esq. would be his attorney and that she would call my office that day or on Monday, February 13, 1984. On that date an order was issued postponing the hearing.

No further message having been received from the complainant or a representative of the complainant, on May 7, 1984 an order was issued directing the complainant to show cause why his request for hearing should not be dismissed on grounds of abandonment.

In that connection, it was noted that 29 Code of Federal Regulations §18.39(b) (48 Fed. Reg. 32,547 (1983)) provides in part that a request for hearing may be dismissed upon its abandonment by the party who filed it. The apparent inaction of the complainant in this case raised a question as to whether he had abandoned his request for hearing.

The complainant responded on June 17, 1984, stating that he did not intend to abandon his claim and that he had filed for bankruptcy and was financially unable to pursue his claim, and requesting that no action be taken on his claim for a period of six months.

On July 2, 1984 the respondent filed a response and motion to dismiss stating, among other things, that the complainant had abandoned his claim and prejudiced the respondent by his delay.

On October 1, 1984 an order was issued in which it was recognized that the respondent's task of defending the case was made more difficult by the passage of time. However, upon giving due consideration to the factors cited by each party, it was concluded that the complainant did not intend to abandon his claim and that his financial circumstances constituted good cause for his previous failure to act. It was considered that the time limits imposed by law were primarily for the benefit of the complainant. It was concluded that the balance of equities militated against dismissal at that time.

However, it was also noted that any request for further postponement beyond the six months requested by the complainant would require a more compelling showing of good cause.

Therefore, at that time the respondent's motion for dismissal was denied, and it was directed that on or before December 17, 1984 (six months after the complainant's response dated June 17, 1984) the complainant file with me at my office in Cincinnati, Ohio, a written statement setting forth the name, address and telephone number of his attorney, if any, and representing. whether or not he was ready to proceed promptly with a hearing In this case, and

if he was not ready to proceed with a hearing a showing of good cause as to why his request for hearing should not be dismissed for abandonment.

The time for a response by the complainant has expired, and he has not submitted a response of any kind. It is concluded that the complainant by his continuing inaction has abandoned his request for hearing. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 29 CFR §18.39(b) that the complainant's request for hearing be, and it hereby is, dismissed.

       Charles W. Campbell
       Administrative Law Judge