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:
SCDLLR vs. Bruce Keaton Alexander

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, State Board of Massage/Bodywork Therapy

Respondents:
Bruce Keaton Alexander
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
08-ALJ-11-0349-IJ

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This matter is before the Administrative Law Court (“Court”) pursuant to a Petition filed on July 28, 2008, by Petitioner South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, State Board of Massage/Bodywork Therapy (“Department”). In its Petition, the Department alleges that Respondent Bruce Keaton Alexander (“Respondent”) is in violation of the South Carolina Massage/Bodywork Practice Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 40-30-10 et seq. (Supp. 2007). On August 8, 2008, the Court issued an Order Requiring a Response From Respondent and Notice of Hearing. In the Order, Respondent was required to “file a response to the Petition no later than September 8, 2008.” Respondent did not file a response to the Petition with the Court.

Pursuant to the Notice of Hearing, a hearing on the merits of this matter was scheduled to begin before the Court at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, September 29, 2008. Both parties appeared at the hearing. At the beginning of the hearing, counsel for the Department made a Motion for Continuance and a Motion for Default. The Court denied both motions. Pursuant to the Notice of Hearing a motion for continuance must be requested with the Court “no later than 24 hours prior to the scheduled hearing date.” However, the Court did not receive notice prior to the hearing that the Department requested a continuance. The Department based its Motion for Default on the ground that Respondent had failed to file a response as required by the Court’s August 8, 2008 Order. Despite Respondent failing to file a response, the Court denied the Department’s motion as Respondent appeared at the hearing and informed the Court that he was ready to proceed in this matter.

However, despite being informed in writing of the scheduled date and time to appear at the hearing, counsel for the Department appeared at the hearing but was unprepared to present its case. Specifically, counsel did not bring any witnesses to testify at the hearing; thus, the Department did not present any evidence to support its petition in this matter. ALC Rule 23 provides that:

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.

ALC Rule 23(A) (emphasis added). Because the Department appeared at the hearing unprepared to present its case and did not meet its burden of proof in this matter,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________________________

September 30, 2008 Marvin F. Kittrell

Columbia, South Carolina Chief Judge


~/pdf/080349.pdf
PDF

Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court