ORDERS:
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR STAY
This matter comes before me on Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration and Respondent's
Motion for Stay of the Order and Decision issued in the above-captioned case on July 3, 1997. For
the following reasons, the motions are DENIED.
Pursuant to ALJD Rule 29(C), the Administrative Law Judge will grant a Motion for
Reconsideration subject to the following reasons set forth in Rule 60(B) (1 through 5), SCRCP:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not
have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under
Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse
party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a
prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or
otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the
judgment should have prospective application.
Further, "[i]n cases permitting an agency to reconsider its decision, courts have emphasized
that an agency's power to reconsider or rehear a case is not an arbitrary one, and such power should
be exercised only when there is justification and good cause; i.e., newly discovered evidence, fraud,
surprise, mistake, inadvertence or change in conditions." Bennett v. City of Clemson, 293 S.C. 64,
66-67, 358 S.E.2d 707, 708-709 (1987). (citing 2 Am.Jur.2d, Administrative Law, § 522 et seq.
(1962 & Supp. 1986)).
In its Motion, Respondent does not present any legal rationale that would warrant
reconsideration in this matter. Respondent has not cited to any newly discovered facts or evidence,
any mistake or inadvertence, fraud, surprise, or any change in conditions to suggest that the findings
or conclusions specifically referenced are incorrect and not in compliance with the statutory or
decisional law of the state. Instead, Respondent reargues its position raised at the hearing and asks
reconsideration of interpretation of the statutes. This tribunal has reviewed the arguments and the
Order and finds no basis to reconsider the Order's findings of fact or conclusions of law. The facts
clearly reveal that the Respondent failed or neglected to have information identifying the owner
affixed to the Class III licensed video game machine at the time of the inspection. S.C. Code Ann.
§§ 12-21-2738 and 12-21-2748 (Supp. 1996) do not require knowledge or intent as a prerequisite
to violation of the statute. The Respondent therefore, has not demonstrated justification or good
cause to reconsider the provisions of the Order. Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby
DENIED.
Respondent also moved for a stay of the Order pending reconsideration. Since the Motion
for Reconsideration is denied, the motion for stay is also denied.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________
ALISON RENEE LEE
Administrative Law Judge
August 6, 1997
Columbia, South Carolina |
