ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The
above-captioned case is before this Court pursuant to the request of Respondent
Laura’s Assisted Living Care (Respondent) for a contested case hearing to
challenge the decision of Petitioner South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control (Department) to revoke its Community Residential Care
Facility license. On January 19, 2006, the Department moved to dismiss this
matter because of Respondent’s default. For the reasons set forth below, I
find that the Department’s motion should be granted.
ALC
Rule 23 provides for the dismissal of a contested case proceeding due to the
default of a party. Rule 23 states:
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.
Id. (emphasis added); cf. Rule 41(b), SCRCP (providing for the dismissal of
a case “[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these
rules or any order of court”), Rule 55(a), SCRCP (providing that a party
against whom relief is sought is in default if he “has failed to plead or
otherwise defend as provided by these rules”). In the instant matter, I find
that Respondent is in default and that this case should be dismissed adversely
to its interest.
Pursuant
to this Court’s Order for Prehearing Statements issued on November 14, 2005, each
party to this 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 Department filed and served its prehearing statement on December 7, 2005.
However, because Respondent did not timely file its prehearing statement, this
Court notified Respondent by a letter dated December 12, 2005, that its
statement was past due and extended the time for Respondent to file a
prehearing statement until December 21, 2005. To date, however, Respondent has
not filed a prehearing statement or any other documents, pleadings, or motions
in this matter. Accordingly, Respondent is in default.
By
virtue of its request for a contested case, Respondent had an
obligation to defend its position. However, Respondent
has not filed a Prehearing Statement with this Court, requested an
extension or enlargement of time pursuant to ALC Rule 3(B) in order to comply
with this Court’s order, or made any filings in this matter other than its
request for a contested case. In short, Respondent has been given abundant
opportunity to comply with this Court’s Order for Prehearing Statements and has
failed to do so. “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). Therefore,
IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Department’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________________
JOHN D.
GEATHERS
Administrative
Law Judge
1205 Pendleton
Street, Suite 224
Columbia, SC
29201-3731
February 7, 2006
Columbia, South Carolina |
