ORDERS:
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REINSTATE AND MOTION TO FILE OUT OF TIME
This matter is before the Administrative Law Court (“ALC”) on the motions of Appellant Linda G. Hudson (“Hudson”), filed on May 13, 2007, to reinstate her appeal and for leave to file her brief out of time. On May 8, 2007, the court issued an Order of Dismissal in this matter pursuant to ALC Rule 38 because Hudson failed to file an appellate brief in support of her appeal in accordance with ALC Rule 37(A). The Respondent has filed no response to the Appellant’s motions.
Counsel for Hudson (“Counsel”) filed an affidavit in support of Hudson’s motion to reinstate. The affidavit states that Counsel primarily practices in domestic relations law and criminal defense law and was unaware that the ALC had specific Rules of Procedure until he received the court’s Order of Dismissal. The affidavit further states that Counsel believed this matter was a contested case (rather than an appeal) and was awaiting notice of a contested case hearing.
Although mindful of the complexities of ALC procedures, upon review of the file the court finds that, separate and apart from Counsel’s general duty to research the court rules and procedures of an unfamiliar forum, Counsel had specific reason to know that the ALC Rules existed and that an appellate brief was required. On December 5, 2006, the court issued a Notice of Assignment which states the following:
Rules of Procedure governing matters before the Court may be obtained from the Clerk of Court or on the Court’s website, www.scalc.net.
The parties are directed to the relevant provisions of the Rules of Procedure for deadlines for perfecting the appeal and briefing the issues on appeal.
(emphasis added). Further, by letter dated March 22, 2007 addressed to the court with a copy provided to Counsel, Respondent’s attorney stated that “the Brief of the Appellant has never been filed.” The letter further indicated that Respondent’s attorney had left a message with Counsel concerning this matter and received no response. Finally, Respondent’s attorney stated that he planned to move to dismiss this matter if Counsel failed to respond in a timely fashion. The court dismissed this matter over six weeks later.
ALC Rule 68 states that “the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules may, where applicable, be applied in proceedings before the Court to resolve questions not addressed by these rules.” According to the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, once a case has been dismissed for failure to comply with the rules, “it shall not be reinstated except by leave of the court, upon good cause shown, after notice to all parties.” Rule 231(a), SCACR. Therefore, motions for reinstatement shall only be granted if a party has demonstrated “good cause.” The court finds that Counsel’s ignorance of the law and failure to understand the procedures to be followed in pursuing an appeal in this court are insufficient to demonstrate good cause for his lack of compliance with the rules. See In re Beard, 359 S.C. 351, 359, 597 S.E.2d 835, 839 (Ct. App. 2004) (finding that an attorney’s ignorance as to the proper time limitations for filing did not constitute “good cause” for a motion to extend the time to file for sanctions).
South Carolina law holds pro se litigants to the same standard as attorneys when it comes to familiarity with legal proceedings. See Hill v. Dotts, 345 S.C. 304, 310, 547 S.E.2d 894, 897 (Ct. App. 2001). Consistent with this principle, the ALC has frequently dismissed cases involving pro se appellants for failure to timely file a brief in accordance with the ALC Rules. See, e.g., Gantt v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr., 07-ALJ-04-00342-AP (Anderson, J., S.C. Admin. Law Ct., July 26, 2007); Little Busy Body’s Daycare v. S.C. Dep’t of Social Serv., 07-ALJ-18-0008-AP, 2007 WL 1577996 (Gossett, J., S.C. Admin. Law Ct., May 3, 2007); Duffy v. S.C. Dep’t of Health and Human Serv., 04-ALJ-08-0805-AP, 2005 WL 902872 (Kittrell, C.J., S.C. Admin. Law Ct., March 22, 2005); Stellwagen v. S.C. Dep’t of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, 02-ALJ-11-0544-AP, 2003 WL 2007897 (Scott, J., S.C. Admin. Law Judge Div., Feb. 21, 2003) (all involving pro se appellants). It would be unjust to overlook such unfamiliarity in an attorney when it has not been excused for laymen, and the ALC has been evenhanded in its enforcement of the rules requiring a timely appellate brief for attorneys and pro se appellants alike. See, e.g., Chigwin v. S.C. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 07-ALJ-21-0182-AP, 2007 WL 2572284 (McLeod, J., S.C. Admin. Law Ct., Aug. 14, 2007); Dudinyak v. S.C. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 06-ALJ-21-0754-AP, 2007 WL 1219352 (Geathers, J., S.C. Admin. Law Ct., March 26, 2007); Horner v. S.C. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 06-ALJ-21-0133-AP, 2006 WL 2583321 (Anderson, J., S.C Admin. Law Ct., Aug. 16, 2006) (all involving appellants represented by attorneys).
“A party has a duty to monitor the progress of his case.” Hill, 345 S.C. at 310, 547 at 897. Counsel also had a duty to reasonably prepare for representation of his client in a novel field. Furthermore, Counsel specifically received notification of the existence of the ALC Rules governing appeals and the manner in which to obtain a copy of them. Additionally, he was on notice from Respondent’s attorney that his appellate brief was overdue. Accordingly, Hudson has not demonstrated good cause to reinstate this appeal. It is therefore
ORDERED that Hudson’s Motion to Reinstate is DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that Hudson’s Motion to File Out of Time is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
PAIGE J. GOSSETT
Administrative Law Judge |