ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Pursuant to this Court’s Order for Prehearing Statements dated March 27,
2006, 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 (20) days of
the date of the Order. By an Order dated April 11, 2006, counsel for
Petitioner South Carolina Department of Insurance received a ten-day extension
of the time within which to file its Prehearing Statement, and, on April 25,
2006, Petitioner filed its Prehearing Statement in the above-captioned matter
with this Court and served the same on counsel for Respondent. However, to
date, Respondent has not responded to this Court’s Order for Prehearing
Statements or to a letter from this Court dated May 15, 2006, that reminded
Respondent of his obligation to file a Prehearing Statement and required
Respondent to file his Prehearing Statement by May 24, 2006. Therefore,
pursuant to ALC Rule 23, I find that Respondent is in default and hereby
dismiss this case adversely to his interests.
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).
By virtue of his request for a contested case, Respondent had an
obligation to defend his position. However,
Respondent has not filed a Prehearing Statement with this Court, or requested
an extension or enlargement of time pursuant to ALC Rule 3(B) in order to comply
with this Court’s Orders. Rather, Respondent has been unresponsive to all
communications from the Court. 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).
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
May 31, 2006
Columbia, South Carolina |
