South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
Peter Spano, d/b/a APS Services, Inc. vs. SCDLLR

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation

PARTIES:
Appellant:
Peter Spano, d/b/a APS Services, Inc.

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, Residential Builders Commission
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
08-ALJ-11-0164-AP

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to ALC Rule 37(A), Appellant was required to file an appellate brief in the above-captioned matter with this Court and to serve all parties with the same “within thirty (30) days after the filing of the Record on Appeal.” ALC Rule 37(A). The Department filed the Record on Appeal in this matter on June 19, 2008. Further, by order dated August 27, 2008, the Court reminded Appellant that its brief was past due, and ordered it to file its appellate brief within ten (10) days of the order. However, despite ALC Rule 37(A) and the Court’s August 27, 2008 order, Appellant has not filed an appellate brief in this matter. Because Appellant has failed to timely file an appellate brief and comply with a Court order, this case is hereby dismissed pursuant to ALC Rule 38. ALC Rule 38 provides that:

Upon motion of any party, or on its own motion, an administrative law judge may dismiss an appeal for failure to comply with any of the rules of procedure for appeals, including the failure to comply with any of the time limits provided by this section.

ALC Rule 38 (emphasis added).

By virtue of its request for an appeal, Appellant had an obligation to advance its position, and Appellant was given ample time to do so. Nonetheless, Appellant failed to file an appellate brief in support of its appeal. This case must, therefore, be dismissed. “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 this case is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________

Marvin F. Kittrell

Chief Judge

September 15, 2008

Columbia, South Carolina


~/pdf/080164.pdf
PDF

Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court