ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This matter is before me pursuant to a request for a contested case hearing filed by Motion Forward Technologies, in which
they object to the Department of Labor, Licensing & Regulation's (Department) issuance of a citation alleging violations of
the Payment of Wages Act, S.C. Code Ann. §41-10-10 (Supp. 2001). On June 24, 2002, I issued an Order for Prehearing
Statements in which each party was given fifteen (15) days to submit their Prehearing Statement. Pursuant to that Order,
the Department timely submitted its Prehearing Statement but Motion Forward Technologies did not. By letter dated July
24, 2002, Respondent Motion Forward Technologies was granted an additional seven (7) days to submit its Prehearing
Statement. As of the date of this Order of Dismissal, this office has received no contact, either verbally or in writing, in
response to the Order for Prehearing Statements or the July 24, 2002 letter. Furthermore, no correspondence has been
returned to the Division as "unclaimed."
Based on the foregoing, Respondent Motion Forward Technologies is dismissed from this action pursuant to
Administrative Law Judge Division Rule 23 with prejudice. Rule 23 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.
Because Motion Forward Technologies has failed to file its Prehearing Statement and has not otherwise contacted this
tribunal as of the issuance of this Order,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Motion Forward Technologies is dismissed from this action.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________
Marvin F. Kittrell
Chief Administrative Law Judge
August 13, 2002
Columbia, South Carolina
|
