ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Pursuant
to this court’s order of November 15, 2007, each party was required to file a
prehearing statement with the Administrative Law Court and serve all parties
within twenty days of the date of the order. Respondent was reminded by letter
dated April 11, 2008, that its prehearing statement was late and was required
to submit one by April 21, 2008. Ms. Lewis, who filed the Notice of Appeal on
behalf of Diamond Gaming, called and advised this court that she was no longer
employed by Diamond Gaming. She was advised to forward the letter to the
business principals for response and presumably did so.
On
April 15, 2008, this court received a letter from Robert M. Burch, Jr., who was
a member of Diamond Gaming, advising that the business was relinquished and
later sold and that all files were assumed by the buyers. By letter dated
April 25, 2008, this court advised Mr. Burch of the relief sought by the
Department: an assessment of $59,340 against Diamond Girl II, which represents
$5 per day per machine, for failure to file required monthly reports under the
Gambling Cruise Act. Mr. Burch was given an additional thirty days to file a
prehearing statement and advised to consult an attorney.
To
date, no prehearing statement on behalf of Diamond Gaming has been received by
this court. Therefore, Pursuant to ALC Rule 23(B), this matter is hereby
dismissed. This rule provides:
Upon
motion of any party, or on its own motion, the Court may dismiss a contested
case for failure to comply with any of the rules of procedure for contested
cases, including the failure to comply with any of the time limits provided
by this section.
ALC Rule 23(B)
(2007) (emphasis added).
By
virtue of Respondent's request for a contested case, it has an obligation to advance its position. Respondent has not requested an extension or
enlargement of time pursuant to ALC Rule 3(B) to comply with this court’s
order. Respondent has been given abundant
opportunity to comply. “There is a limit beyond which the court should 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).
IT
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the above-captioned case is hereby dismissed with
prejudice. AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
June 3, 2008 JOHN
D. GEATHERS
Columbia, South Carolina Administrative
Law Judge
1205 Pendleton
Street, Suite 224
Columbia, South
Carolina 29201-3731
|
