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:
New South Club, Inc., d/b/a Romelo's vs. SCDOR

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Revenue

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
New South Club, Inc., d/b/a Romelo's
721½ Lady Street, Columbia, SC

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Revenue
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
01-ALJ-17-0275-CC

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On August 7, 2001, Kenneth E. Allen, Attorney for Petitioner, filed a Motion to Dismiss the protest of Mr. Reggie Garrett based on his failure to appear at the deposition on August 2, 2001, pursuant to a properly served subpoena. Mr. Garrett did not provide any reason for his failure to appear and thus was served with Notice of this Motion on August 2, 2001. ALJD Rule 21 provides that discovery shall be conducted pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-320 (Supp. 2000). Further, parties shall be permitted no more than three depositions under Rule 30, SCRCP. ALJD Rule 22 regarding Subpoenas provides in relevant part, "An attorney authorized to practice before the courts of the State of South Carolina, as an officer of the court, may also issue and sign a subpoena on behalf of the Division." Thus, a properly issued and served subpoena bears the imprimatur of the Division's authority and justifies an appropriate sanction for default. ALJD Rule 23 provides that a contested case may be dismissed adversely to a defaulting party who fails to appear.

Mr. Garrett is only a protestant and has not made a motion to be admitted as a party to this action. Nonetheless, the Department has stated that it would have issued the license but for the protest. While Mr. Ingram, the principal in New South Club, was found in 1997 to be of unsuitable moral character for the issuance of a permit, that finding was based on 1991 convictions for bank fraud. Because ten years have passed without any criminal convictions, the Department has found that Mr. Ingram meets all the criteria for issuance of the permit. Thus, Mr. Garrett's protest is the sole reason for holding the contested case hearing. By his failure to appear or to show good cause why he did not, Mr. Garrett has waived his right to participate in the contested case hearing.

Thus, since the Department has stated in its agency transmittal that Mr. Ingram meets all the criteria for the issuance of the permit and since Mr. Garrett has waived his right to protest the application by his failure to appear at his deposition, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned case is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Department shall continue to process Mr. Ingram's application.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.



______________________________

JOHN D. GEATHERS

Administrative Law Judge

Post Office Box 11667

Columbia, South Carolina 29211-1667



August 9, 2001

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court