Since both the record and applicable legal precedent support the ALJ's findings and conclusions in denying the Complainants' motion to reconsider, he did not commit error. Therefore, we DISMISS Ulibarri's and Mason's complaints.
SO ORDERED.
OLIVER M. TRANSUE
Administrative Appeals Judge
M. CYNTHIA DOUGLASS
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
[ENDNOTES]
1 18 U.S.C.A. § 1514A (West Supp. 2008).
2 http://www.acs-inc.com/.
3 18 U.S.C.A. § 1514A(a).
4 Respondent's Exhibit (RX) 1, p. 5.
5 Id., p. 4.
6 January 13, 2006 Decision and Order at 19-21.
7 Transcript at 72-73; Complainants' Post Trial Brief at 19-20.
8 Decision and Order at 21-22. The ALJ also found that the Complainants had timely filed their SOX complaints with the Department of Labor. Id. at 16-17.
9 July 24, 2006 Order to Dismiss.
10 RX 1, p. 16. The entire DRP, including the "Questions and Answers" section, was part of the record before the ALJ.
11 Motion to Reconsider at 2-3.
12 Comments on Respondent's Response to Motion to Reconsider at 5-9, dated September 11, 2006.
13 370 U.S. 626, 633-634 (1962).
14 Order on Motion to Reconsider.
15 29 C F.R. § 1980.110 (2007); Secretary's Order 1-2002 (Delegation of Authority and Responsibility to the Administrative Review Board), 67 Fed. Reg. 64,272 (Oct. 17, 2002).
16 29 C.F.R. § 1980.110 (b).
17 Henrich v. Ecolab, Inc., ARB No 05-030, ALJ No. 2004-SOX-051, slip op. at 7 (ARB June 29, 2006).
18 Transcript at 22-27.
19 Order on Motion to Reconsider at 5.
20 Dumaw v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 690, ARB No. 02-099, ALJ No. 2001-ERA-006, slip op. at 5-6 (ARB Aug. 27, 2002) citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 396 (1993); see also Steffenhagen v. Securitas Sverige, AR, ARB No. 03-139, ALJ No. 2003-SOX-024, slip op. at 4-5 (ARB Jan. 13, 2004).
21 See Link v. Wabash, 370 U.S. at 633-634.
22 Id. The Court did note, however, "[I]f an attorney's conduct falls substantially below what is reasonable under the circumstances, the client's remedy is against the attorney in a suit for malpractice." 370 U.S. at 634 n.10.
23 Brief at 18.
24 Id.
25 Order on Motion to Reconsider at 6.
26 Austin Mun. Sec., Inc. v. NASD, 757 F.2d 676, 691 (5th Cir. 1985).
27 Thomas H. Oehmke, J.D. & Joan M. Brovins, J.D., 32 Causes of Action 2D §§ 26, 27 (2007).