UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of Administrative Law Judges
Menu
About OALJ
Overview
About the Chief Judge
FAQs
Organizational Chart
Contacts
Contacting OALJ
National Office
BALCA
District Offices:
Boston, MA
Cherry Hill, NJ
Cincinnati, OH
Covington, LA
Newport News, VA
Pittsburgh, PA
San Francisco, CA
Washington, DC
Keyword / Case Number Searches
DMS Search
Case Status
DOL Home > OALJ > ERISA > USDOL v. M & B Mini-BLind Corp., 96-RIS-9 (ALJ June 26, 1996)
USDOL/OALJ Reporter
USDOL v. M & B Mini-BLind Corp., 96-RIS-9 (ALJ June 26, 1996)
U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Administrative Law Judges
800 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001-8002 Date: June 26, 1996
Case No.: 96-RIS-9
In the Matter of:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
Complainant
v.
M & B MINI-BLIND CORPORATION, Respondent
BEFORE: JOHN M. VITTONE
Chief Judge
DECISION AND ORDER This matter arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1100 et seq. and the regulations issued thereunder at 29 C.F.R. Sections 2560 and 2570.
On September 15, 1995, the Department of Labor (DOL) notified the above-named Respondent of an assessment of a civil money penalty in the amount of $50,000.00 for violations of the above-mentioned Act. By letter dated October 13, 1995, Respondent requested a hearing before this Office.
On November 3, 1995, this Office issued a Notice of Docketing which required both parties to file certain information relating to this matter. On December 13, 1995, this Office granted a Joint Motion for Postponement of Time Within Which to File Pretrial Matters until March 4, 1996 as the parties were engaged in attempts at resolution of this matter. On
November 30, 1995, DOL filed its Prehearing Statement. On May 1, 1996, this Office issued an Order to Show Cause for Respondent's failure to respond to the Notice of Docketing. The Order instructed Respondent to explain why a default judgment should not be entered in this case. To date, Respondent has not filed an answer to the Notice of Docketing or the Order to Show Cause.
The regulations at 29 C.F.R. section 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 decision of the proceeding be rendered against the non-complying party, or both.
After reviewing the record and considering Respondent's failure to participate in this matter, I hereby ORDER that Judgment by Default is entered against Respondent. As a result of the default decision, Respondent is ORDERED to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $50,000.00 to DOL.
JOHN M. VITTONE
Chief Judge
JMV/shr
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
United States Department of Labor
Office of Administrative Law Judges
800 K St NW
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 693-7300
www.oalj.dol.gov
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
White House
USA.gov
NO FEAR Act Data
U.S. Office of Special Counsel
LABOR DEPARTMENT
Español
Office of Inspector General
Subscribe to the DOL Newsletter
Read the DOL Newsletter
Emergency Accountability Status Link
A to Z Index
ABOUT THE SITE
Freedom of Information Act
Privacy and Security Statement
Disclaimers
Important Website Notices
Plug-Ins Used on DOL.gov
Accessibility Statement