ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
This matter came before the Administrative Law Judge Division (Division) pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 38-43-130 (Supp. 1998) and S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310, et seq. (1986 and Supp. 1998) for a contested case
hearing.
The Notice of Hearing which scheduled this case to be heard on Thursday, February 17, 2000, was mailed to
the Respondent via certified U.S. mail on December 8, 1999.(1) The Respondent failed to claim that mailing
and it was returned to the Division on January 14, 2000. Thereafter, on January 17, 2000, the Division re-mailed the Notice of Hearing to the Respondent via certified U.S. mail and regular U.S. mail. The second
Notice of Hearing mailed to the Respondent via certified U.S. mail was returned to the Division as
"unclaimed" on February 15, 2000. However, the notice sent by way of regular U.S. mail has not been
returned to the Division as of the date of this Order of Dismissal.
On February 8, 2000, this office received a Motion for Continuance from Amelia R. Linder, attorney for the
Department of Insurance (Department), setting forth that her witnesses were coming from Iowa and needed
additional time to designate a company representative to testify and to make travel arrangements. This
motion was granted on February 10, 2000, and the hearing was not immediately rescheduled at that time.
On that date, the Respondent was forwarded the Order granting the continuance, along with a cover letter
requesting Mr. Baugher to contact this office within five (5) days of receipt of the letter and Order. These
mailings were sent both certified and regular U.S. mail.
On February 24, 2000, Ms. Linder filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss this action pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Rules of Procedure for the Administrative Law Judge Division. Rule 23 provides:
The administrative law judge may dismiss a contested case or dispose of a contested case adverse to the
defaulting party. A default occurs when a party fails to plead or otherwise prosecute or defend, fails to
appear at a hearing without the proper consent of the judge or fails to comply with any interlocutory order of
the administrative law judge. Any non-defaulting party may move for an order dismissing the case or
terminating it adversely to the defaulting party.
(Emphasis added). This office has not received any returned correspondence or verbal communication from
the Respondent as of the date of this Order of Dismissal. In other words, Mr. Baugher has not
communicated to the Division that he wishes to diligently pursue this matter after being requested to make
such communication. "There is a limit beyond which the court should not allow a litigant to consume the
time of the court . . . ." Georgian Apparel, Inc. v. Todd, 303 S.C. 87, 92, 399 S.E. 2d 16, 19 (Ct. App.
1990). Therefore, because the Respondent did not contact the Division after being requested to do so, has
failed to claim his certified mailings, and has not otherwise contacted this tribunal regarding this hearing as of
the date of this Order,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned case is dismissed with prejudice.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
March 10, 2000
Columbia, South Carolina
1. The address the Division has for the Respondent is that one provided by the Department of Insurance on the Agency
Transmittal, which did not contain a phone number for Mr. Baugher. Also, directory assistance for Raleigh, North Carolina,
did not have a corresponding listing. |