USDOL v. Mitchem Transports, Inc., 2002-SCA-16 (ALJ Apr, 29, 2003)
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)
Issue Date: 29 April 2003 CASE NO.: 2002-SCA-16
IN THE MATTER OF
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Plaintiff
v.
MITCHEM TRANSPORTS, INC., DAVID MITCHEM,
AND PEGGY MITCHEM, INDIVIDUALLY AND JOINTLY,
Respondent
ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT JUDGMENT
On April 8, 2003 I issued an Order Denying Default and Allowing Time to Answer inasmuch as Respondent appearing pro se failed to file an answer to Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment. In my Order I set forth the requirements for a proper answer as contained in 29 C.F.R.§ 616(b) (2001) including a statement of facts constituting the grounds of defense with specific admissions, explanations or denials for each allegation of the complaint. I further advised that pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 616 (b) and (c)(2001) failure to file an answer would constitute grounds for admission of complaint allegations, waiver of hearing, and entry of default judgment adopting the material facts of the complaint and ordering appropriate relief.
On April 24, 2003, Peggy Mitchem filed a response to the complaint. A copy of the complaint is attached as Attachment A. A copy of Peggy Mitchem's response is attached as Attachment B. Attached as Peggy Mitchem's initial response to the complaint is Attachment C. Counsel for Plaintiff contends that Respondent failed to file a proper answer to the complaint in that Respondent never admitted, explained, or denied the complaint allegations and that accordingly I should either, issue a default judgment or consider all allegations as admitted.
After reviewing both responses I agree with Counsel for Plaintiff and find that Respondent failed to provide proper answers providing instead obscure, random, and at times incomprehensive statements. Accordingly, I adopt as findings of fact the material allegations of the complaint, order Respondent pursuant to McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act, (SCA), 41 U.S.C.§§ 352 and 352 to reimburse Plaintiff on behalf of Respondent's employees the sum of $84,489.09, representing the amount Respondent underpaid in wages and fringe benefits its employees who provided mail hauling and related services under Respondent's contract with the U.S. Postal Service (Contract Number 79732) and transportation and related services under Respondent's contracts with the U.S. Veterans Administration (Contract Numbers V519P-1178 and V519P-1362).
[Page 2]
Furthermore in accord with the SCA, 41 U.S.C. § 354 (a), Respondent is barred from being awarded any contract with the United States government for a period of 3 years from the date of publication of a list by the Comptroller General naming Respondent as a violator of the SCA. Hugo Reforestation, Inc. ARB Case No 99-003 (April 30, 2001).
