Secretary of Labor v. Westfall Aggregate & Materials, Inc.

Plain-English summary

Westfall Aggregate received a $16,400 proposed assessment in July 2011, missed the contest deadline, and did not seek reopening until July 2019. The Commission had previously treated the request as moot because it believed the assessment never became final. The D.C. Circuit reversed that conclusion and directed the Commission to decide whether Westfall qualified for extraordinary relief. On remand, the Commission held that claims of mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect are subject to Rule 60's one-year limit. Because Westfall waited almost eight years, the Commission denied reopening.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The motion to reopen was denied on remand from the D.C. Circuit.
• Key point: A reopening request based on mistake or excusable neglect must be filed within one year of the final order.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW
COMMISSION

1331 PENNSYLVANIA
AVENUE, NW, SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON, DC 20004-1710

SECRETARY OF LABOR, :

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) :

                                                                     :

                    v.                                              :          Docket

No. LAKE 2019-0317-M

                                                                     :

WESTFALL AGGREGATE :

& MATERIALS, INC. :

BEFORE: Jordan, Chair; Althen, Rajkovich, Baker, and Marvit,
Commissioners

DECISION

BY THE COMMISSION:

This civil penalty proceeding arises
under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.
(2018) (“Mine Act”) and comes to the Commission on remand from the United
States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Sec’y of Labor v. Westfall
Aggregate & Materials, Inc., 69 F.4th 902 (D.C. Cir. 2023). The Court
directed the Commission to review our conclusion that a motion filed by
Westfall Aggregate & Materials, Inc. (“Westfall”) to reopen a final order
assessing a penalty was moot. The Court ruled that the Commission must determine
whether Westfall had demonstrated its entitlement to extraordinary relief. Id.
at 915. Consistent with the Court’s decision and our analysis of the
facts, we deny the motion to reopen on remand.

I.

Factual and
Procedural Background

This case concerns two enforcement
actions by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) – Citation No. 6559330 and Order No. 6559329 – both issued
on February 28, 2011. The $16,400 proposed special assessment for the Citation was
received by the operator on July 20, 2011. 69 F.4th at 908, 909; Att. A to Sec’s
Opp. The operator failed to notify the Secretary of its intent to contest the
assessment within 30 days of July 20, 2011. Therefore, according to the
Secretary, the assessment became a final order on August 19, 2011. Westfall
received a delinquency notice regarding this penalty on October 6, 2011.

On July 12, 2019, almost eight
years later, the operator filed a motion to reopen the final Commission order. The
Secretary opposed the request to reopen.
The Commission found that the proposed assessment never effectively
became a final Commission order, and therefore concluded that the operator’s
motion to reopen was moot. 44 FMSHRC 369 (May 2022). The Secretary appealed the
Commission’s order to the D.C. Circuit. The Court concluded that the penalty
assessment became a final order on August 19, 2011. 69 F.4th at 908,
909, 914. Therefore, the D.C. Circuit found that the matter was not moot, and
reversed and remanded the matter to the Commission. Id. at 915. In
remanding the matter, the D.C. Circuit found that “the Commission failed to
assess whether Westfall could ‘carry the burden of establishing its entitlement
to extraordinary relief.”’ Id .

II.

Disposition

Under section 105(a) of the Mine
Act, an operator who wishes to contest a proposed penalty must notify the
Secretary of Labor no later than 30 days after receiving the proposed penalty
assessment. If the operator fails to notify the Secretary, the proposed penalty
assessment is deemed a final order of the Commission. 30 U.S.C. § 815(a). In
evaluating requests to reopen final orders, the Commission has found guidance
in Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See 29 C.F.R. §
2700.1(b) (“the Commission and its Judges shall be guided so far as practicable
by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”); Jim Walter Res., Inc. , 15
FMSHRC 782, 787 (May 1993).

Due to the
extraordinary nature of reopening a penalty that has become final, the operator
has the burden of showing that it should be granted such relief through a
detailed explanation of its failure to timely contest the penalty and any
delays in filing for reopening. Further, Rule 60(c) provides that a Rule 60(b)
motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons enumerated in Rule
60(b)(1)), i.e. “ mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect,” not more
than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(c).

The federal
district courts have strictly observed this one-year time limit. In Wright v.
Poole, the court held that because “[the] Motion is really a Rule 60(b)(1)
motion . . . the Motion must be brought within the ‘absolute’ outer limit of one
year.” 81 F.Supp.3d 280 (S.D.NY 2014) (citing Martha Graham Sch. & Dance
Found., 466 F.3d 97, 100 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[t]he one-year limitation period
for Rule 60(b) motions is absolute”)). And in Goff v. Walters, 2024 WL
1722251 (E.D. Cal. 2024), the court recently held that “Rule 60(b)(1) authorizes
courts to relieve parties from a final judgment or order for “mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect [and t]he decision on a Rule 60(b)(1)
motion lies with the sound discretion of the court.” The court concluded that the
“motion is untimely under Rule 60(b)(1) as it is brought more than a year after
the entry of the order of dismissal.” Id.

Similarly, we
have consistently enforced the one-year time limit for motions to reopen where
the operator seeks reopening based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect. Specifically, we have held that “motions to reopen alleging mistake,
inadvertence or excusable neglect must be made no more than a year after entry
of the final order.” Leesville Land , 2024 WL 893571 (Feb. 2024) citing
JS Sand & Gravel, Inc. 26 FMSHRC 795, 796 (Oct. 2004); Stony
Creek Quarry Corp., 44 FMSHRC 366 (May 2022); Apogee Coal Co., 38 FMSHRC
32 (Jan. 2016); Four Corners Materials, 37 FMSHRC 1150 (June 2015).

As recognized by the D.C. Circuit, Westfall
claimed that “excusable neglect, mistake, inadvertence, and other good causes”
justified reopening this matter. 69 F.4 th at 912. In its motion to
reopen, the operator contended that its confusion regarding Citation No. 6559330
and Order 6559329 “resulted in an inadvertent and mistaken
interpretation and treatment” of Citation 6559330 “by Petitioner [operator] and
its staff.” MTR at 5 (emphasis added). The operator also claimed that “such
inadvertence and mistakes constitute excusable neglect on the part of
Petitioner.” Id. (emphasis added).

Accordingly, under our precedents, the
operator’s reopening request is subject to the one-year rule. In addition, it
is undisputed that the operator filed its request to reopen in July 2019,
almost eight years after the final order of August 19, 2011. MTR at 1; 69 F.4th
at 909, 914. Consequently, the motion for relief was untimely filed more than a
year after entry of the final order.

        Westfall’s motion to reopen is hereby DENIED.

/s/ Mary Lu
Jordan

Mary Lu Jordan,
Chair

/s/ William I.
Althen

William I.
Althen, Commissioner

/s/ Marco M. Rajkovich,
Jr.

Marco M. Rajkovich,
Jr., Commissioner

/s/ Timothy J.
Baker

Timothy J. Baker,
Commissioner

/s/ Moshe Z.
Marvit

Moshe Z. Marvit,
Commissioner

Distribution:

Cary W. Purcell, Esq.

Attorney for Westfall Aggregate & Materials, Inc.

19334 Hopewell Road

Mount Vernon, OH 43050

[email protected]

April Nelson, Esq.

Associate Solicitor

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

Division of Mine Safety and Health

201 12th Street South, Suite 401

Arlington, VA 22202

[email protected]

Emily Toler Scott, Esq.

Counsel for Appellate Litigation

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

Division of Mine Safety and Health

201 12th Street South, Suite 401

Arlington, VA 22202

[email protected]

Melanie Garris

USDOL/MSHA, OAASEI/CPCO

201 12th Street South, Suite 401

Arlington, VA 22202

[email protected]

Chief Administrative Law Judge Glynn F. Voisin

Federal Mine Safety Health Review Commission

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 520N

Washington, DC 20004-1710

[email protected]