ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On August 3, 2000, an ORDER was issued to all parties requiring the filing of Prehearing Statements within fifteen (15) days of the
date of that ORDER. Given the additional five (5) day extension allowed for mailing under ALJD Rule 5(C), a Prehearing Statement
was due on August 23, 2000. Respondent (Charleston T & T, Inc.) failed to file the Prehearing Statement.
On September 12, 2000, Respondent was again directed to file the Prehearing Statement on or before September 19, 2000. No
Prehearing Statement was received by the close of business on the extension date of September 19, 2000, and thus Respondent failed
to comply with the Order.
Upon a party's failure to defend an action or upon a failure to adhere to an interlocutory order, the Administrative Law Judge may
dismiss a contested case in a manner so as to uphold the position of the party in compliance. ALJD Rule 23. Therefore, IT IS
ORDERED:
- The South Carolina Department of Revenue, having complied in this matter, is not in default.
- The Respondent has failed to proceed with this action despite being directed to do so and further has failed to comply with an
interlocutory order.
- The failure of the Respondent to present a defense in this matter and the failure of the Respondent to obey an interlocutory order
amounts to the Respondent having acquiesced to the actions and remedy sought by South Carolina Department of Revenue.
- Accordingly, no defense having been submitted by Respondent, the South Carolina Department of Revenue shall proceed to
revoke the Respondent's beer and wine permit.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
This 2nd day of October, 2000
Columbia, South Carolina |
