ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Pursuant to this Court’s order of July 25, 2005, each party to the above-captioned case was required to file a Prehearing Statement with this Court and serve the same on all parties within twenty days of the date of the order. The Order for Prehearing Statements and subsequent correspondence regarding compliance with the Order were directed to John R. Etheridge, Jr., an attorney Petitioner had identified as representing her in this matter. By a letter dated August 30, 2005, Mr. Etheridge informed this Court that he was not, in fact, representing Petitioner in this case; to the letter, Mr. Etheridge attached copies of several letters he had sent to Petitioner explaining that he was not representing her in this matter. Therefore, on September 7, 2005, this tribunal sent a letter directly to Petitioner requesting that she personally respond to the Order for Prehearing Statements by September 27, 2005. However, to date, Petitioner has not filed a Prehearing Statement with this Court. Accordingly, pursuant to ALC Rule 23, this matter is hereby dismissed.
ALC Rule 23 provides that:
[t]he 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.
Id. (emphasis added). Petitioner is now in default and this matter should be dismissed. By virtue of her request for a contested case, Petitioner had an obligation to defend her position. However, Petitioner has not filed a Prehearing Statement with this Court, has not requested an extension or enlargement of time pursuant to ALC Rule 3(B) in order to comply with this tribunal’s order, and has not filed any documents with this Court in connection with this case other than her initial request for a contested case. In short, Petitioner has been given abundant opportunity to comply with this tribunal’s Order for Prehearing Statements and has failed to do so. Therefore, this matter must be dismissed. “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).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the above-captioned case is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
1205 Pendleton Street, Suite 224
Columbia, South Carolina 29201-3731
October 11, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina |
