SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

This matter is before the Administrative Law Court (ALC or Court) pursuant to a request for a contested case hearing filed by North Myrtle Beach Rescue Squad, d/b/a Everyday Bingo (Respondent) on July 11, 2006. Respondent challenges the South Carolina Department of Revenue’s (Department) Final Determination, dated June 27, 2006, which alleged that Respondent committed a violation of the South Carolina Bingo Tax Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-3910, et seq., and imposed a penalty in the amount of $1,000.00 for that violation.

On September 26, 2006, the Court issued an Order for Pre-hearing Statements, which required the parties to file their Pre-hearing Statements with the Court within thirty (30) days of the date of that order. That Order required the Respondent to be represented by an attorney admitted to practice in South Carolina at the hearing and with regard to any filings made with the Court pursuant to ALC Rule 8(A) and Rennaissance Enterprises, Inc. v. Summit Teleservices, Inc., 334 S.C. 649, 515 S.E.2d 257 (1999).^[1] The Department timely filed its Pre-hearing statement. However, Respondent did not file its Pre-Hearing Statement within thirty (30) days of the date of that Order.

By letter dated November 9, 2006, the Court notified Respondent that its Pre-Hearing Statement was past due and provided it an additional fifteen (15) days from the date of the letter to submit its Pre-Hearing Statement. On November 16, 2006, Respondent filed a request for additional time to file its Pre-Hearing Statement and again informed the Court that it was searching for an appropriate attorney.

ALC 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 proper consent of the judge or fails to comply with any interlocutory order of the administrative law judge….

As of the date of this Order, Respondent has failed to file its Pre-hearing Statement in accordance with the Court’s September 26, 2006 Order. Furthermore, Respondent has been afforded ample time to secure counsel and submit its Pre-hearing Statement. “There is a limit beyond which the court should not allow a litigant to consume the time of the court. . . .” Georganne Apparel, Inc. v. Todd, 303 S.C. 87, 92, 399 S.E.2d 16, 19 (Ct. App. 1990). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent’s request for an extension is denied and that this matter is dismissed. The Department’s Final Determination therefore stands as the final decision in this matter.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________________

Marvin F. Kittrell

Chief Administrative Law Judge

November 28, 2006

Columbia, South Carolina