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:
South Carolina Secretary of State vs. Share Group, Inc.

AGENCY:
South Carolina Secretary of State

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
South Carolina Secretary of State

Respondents:
Share Group, Inc.
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
01-ALJ-30-0525-CC

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On February 11, 2002, Petitioner South Carolina Secretary of State moved to dismiss this matter on account of Respondent's default for failure to comply with this tribunal's orders. Respondent has not responded to this motion.

Pursuant to this tribunal's order of December 18, 2001, each party to this case was required to file a prehearing statement with the Administrative Law Judge Division and serve all parties with the same by January 14, 2002. However, Respondent has not responded to this tribunal's order for a prehearing statement or to a letter from this tribunal dated January 22, 2002, requesting the filing of a prehearing statement by January 31, 2002. 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 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.

ALJD Rule 23 (2001) (emphasis added).

By virtue of Respondent's request for a contested case, it has an obligation to advance its position. Respondent has not requested an extension or enlargement of time pursuant to ALJD Rule 3B to comply with this tribunal's order, but rather has been unresponsive to all communications from this tribunal. Moreover, Respondent 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 with prejudice.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________________________

JOHN D. GEATHERS

Administrative Law Judge

February 28, 2002

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court