Devereaux Corp. v. USDOL, 2000-WTW-2 (ALJ May 23, 2001)
U.S. Department of
Labor
Office of Administrative Law Judges 800 K Street, NW, Suite 400-N Washington, DC 20001-8002
Date Issued: May 23, 2001
Case Number: 2000-WTW-00002
In the Matter of:
DEVEREAUX CORPORATION,
Complainant
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT
This case arises under the Welfare-to-Work (WTW) provisions of Title IV, Part A of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 603(a)(5) and the applicable regulations at 20 C.F.R. Part 645.
On June 14, 2000, the Employment and Training Administration of the United States Department of Labor (Respondent) notified the Devereaux Corporation (Complainant) of its intent to terminate Grant Number Y-7914-9-00-81-60. Due to Complainant's failure to comply with 29 C.F.R. § 95.61(a)(1), on August 11, 2000, Respondent issued a Final Determination informing Complainant that Grant Number Y-7914-9-00-81-60 had been terminated. On September 6, 2000, Complainant requested a hearing before this office. This Office issued a Notification of Receipt of Request for Hearing and Prehearing Order on November 22, 2000 (Prehearing Order). Therein, the parties were instructed to submit certain information to this Office. Respondent filed Prehearing Exchange on December 22, 2000.
Due to the failure of Complainant to comply with the Prehearing Order, on January 31, 2001, this Office issued an Order to Show Cause. The Show Cause Order instructed Complainant to explain why a default judgment should not be entered in this matter. On March 5, 2001, Complainant filed a Request for Extension of Time to respond to the Show Cause Order. Concurrently on March 5, 2001, Respondent filed an objection to the granting of the Request for Extension of Time. Respondent argued that the case should be dismissed because Complainant did not state that it would ever file a response to the Prehearing Order. Nevertheless, the extension of time was granted and Complainant was required to file a response to the Show
[Page 2]
Cause Order no later than April 2, 2001. On April 11, 2001, and April 17, 2001, Complainant filed responses to the Show Cause Order. The responses fail to provide an adequate explanation for Complainant's failure to respond to the Prehearing Order. They merely assert an intent to take corrective action or to seek a resolution with Respondent.
The regulations at 29 C.F.R. § 18.6(d)(2)(v) provide that:
If a party or an officer or agent of a party fails to comply with a subpoena
or with an order, . . . or any other order of the administrative law judge,
the administrative law judge, for the purpose of permitting resolution of
the relevant issues and disposition of the proceeding without unnecessary
delay despite such failure, may . . . [r]ule that a pleading, or part of a
pleading, or a motion or other submission by the non-complying party,
concerning which the order or subpoena was issued, be stricken, or that
a decision of the proceeding be rendered against the non-complying
party, or both.
After reviewing the entire record, a Judgment by Default is entered against Complainant. In light of the foregoing, the Appeal in this matter is hereby DISMISSED.
