Mourfield v. Frederick Plaas & Plaas, Inc., 1999-CAA-13 (ALJ June 2, 2000)

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Administrative Law Judges Heritage Plaza Bldg. - Suite 530 111 Veterans Memorial Blvd Metairie, LA 70005 (504) 589-6201 (504) 589-6268 (FAX)

Date: June 2, 2000

Case No.: 1999-CAA-13

In the Matter of:

BRUCE DAVID MOURFIELD II,
    Complainant

    against

FREDERICK PLAAS & PLAAS, INCORPORATED,
    Respondents

   Respondent in its motion has conceded that there is no precedent for Respondent's recovery of attorney's fees, costs, etc., in whistleblower cases. However it is their position that federal law and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (specifically Rule 11) should apply to this case.

   I find that there is no statute or regulatory authority for me to allow such fees and costs.

   In fact in the case cited by Respondent, Rex v. EBASCO Servs., Inc., No. 87-ERA-6/40 (1989), the Secretary has held that Section 18.36 of the ALJ Rules of Practice provide a remedy for conduct which is dilatory, unethical, unreasonable, and in bad faith, so that Rule 11 is not applicable. That remedy is disqualification.

   Thus, I find that in this case each litigant must pay their own costs and attorneys' fees accordingly.

   Respondent's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, Expenses, and Sanctions is DENIED.

   So ORDERED.

      RICHARD D. MILLS
      Administrative Law Judge