ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Pursuant to my Order dated August 19, 1999, each party in this contested case was required to file a prehearing statement
with the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD or Division) and to serve the same on all parties within fifteen (l5) days
of the date of that Order. The Order for Prehearing Statements (Order) was sent to the Petitioner by way of certified mail.
On August 23, 1999, the Division received the signed Return Receipt, evidencing that the Order was accepted by the
Petitioner. On September 10, 1999, the Division sent a letter to the Petitioner, along with the Notice and Order, by way of
certified and regular U.S. mail, granting her an additional ten (10) days to respond to the Order. The Division received the
signed Return Receipt evidencing receipt by the Petitioner on September 14, 1999. However, as of the date of this Order of
Dismissal, the Petitioner has not responded to this Division's request for a prehearing statement. Pursuant to ALJD Rule 23,
this matter is hereby dismissed. This Rule provides:
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 respond 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.
ALJD Rule 23 (1998) (emphasis added).
By virtue of Petitioner's request for a contested case, she has an obligation to defend her position. Petitioner has not
requested an extension or enlargement of time pursuant to ALJD Rule 3B to comply with this Division's order, but rather has
been unresponsive to all communications. Petitioner has been given abundant opportunity to comply. "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 and the Petitioner is subject to the
penalty or penalties imposed in this matter.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing in this matter scheduled for December 9, 1999, is hereby cancelled and will
not take place.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________________
RALPH KING ANDERSON, III
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
September 29, 1999
Columbia, South Carolina |