Secretary of Labor v. Leesville Land, LLC

Plain-English summary

Leesville Land sought to reopen ten assessments missed by a former safety director who had limited contest experience and did not understand the assessment process. After MSHA warned that the mine's enforcement history was trending toward pattern-of-violations consideration, Leesville hired an experienced safety director. The replacement discovered the missed filings, promptly sought relief, and implemented new procedures and support. The Commission denied the oldest assessment with prejudice because the request came more than one year after finality. It reopened the other nine assessments and remanded them, with no opposition from the Secretary.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: LAKE 2024-0051 was denied with prejudice, while the other nine assessments were reopened and remanded.
• Key point: Corrective staffing and prompt action supported reopening, but Rule 60's one-year limit barred the oldest case.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331
PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W., SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON,
DC 20004-1710

SECRETARY
OF LABOR,

MINE
SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION
(MSHA)

v.

LEESVILLE
LAND LLC

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket
No. LAKE 2024-0051

A.C.
No. 33-00968-560122

Docket
No. LAKE 2024-0052

A.C.
No. 33-00968-570892

Docket
No. LAKE 2024-0053

A.C.
No. 33-00968-570975

Docket
No. LAKE 2024-0054

A.C.
No. 33-00968-571806

Docket
No. LAKE 2024-0055

A.C.
No. 33-00968-572422

Docket
No. LAKE 2024-0056

A.C.
No. 33-00968-574067

Docket
No. LAKE 2024-0057

A.C.
No. 33-00968-576146

Docket
No. LAKE 2024-0058

A.C.
No. 33-00968-580230

Docket
No. LAKE 2024-0059

A.C.
No. 33-00968-582187

Docket
No. LAKE 2024-0060

A.C.
No. 33-00968-585210

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

ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION:

        These

matters arise under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. §
801 et seq. (2018) (“Mine Act”). On November 22, 2023, the Commission received
from Leesville Land LLC (“Leesville”) a motion seeking to reopen ten penalty
assessments that had become final orders of the Commission pursuant to section
105(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C.

§
815(a). [1]

        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).

        We

have held, however, that in appropriate circumstances, we possess jurisdiction to reopen uncontested
assessments that have become final Commission orders under section 105(a). Jim
Walter Res., Inc., 15 FMSHRC 782, 786-89 (May 1993) (“ JWR ”). In
evaluating requests to reopen final orders, the Commission has found guidance
in Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, under which the
Commission may relieve a party from a final order of the Commission on the
basis of mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, or other reason justifying
relief. 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”); JWR ,
15 FMSHRC at 787. We have also observed that default is a harsh remedy and
that, if the defaulting party can make a showing of good cause for a failure to timely respond, the case may be
reopened and appropriate proceedings on the merits permitted. See Coal Prep.
Servs., Inc., 17 FMSHRC 1529, 1530 (Sept. 1995).

Records of the Department of Labor’s Mine
Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) indicate that the proposed assessment
in Docket No. LAKE 2024-0051 was delivered to the operator on August 16, 2022,
and became a final order of the Commission on September 15, 2022. The proposed
assessment in Docket No. LAKE 2024-0052 was delivered to the operator on
February 7, 2023, and became a final order of the Commission on March 9, 2023. The
proposed assessment in Docket No. LAKE 2024-0053 was delivered to the operator
on February 15, 2023, and became a final order of the Commission on March 17,
2023. The proposed assessment in Docket No. LAKE 2024-0054 was delivered to the
operator on February 28, 2023, and became a final order of the Commission on
March 30, 2023. The proposed assessment in Docket No. LAKE 2024-0055 was
delivered to the operator on March 15, 2023, and became a final order of the
Commission on April 14, 2023. The proposed assessment in Docket No. LAKE
2024-0056 was delivered to the operator on April 10, 2023, and became a final
order of the Commission on May 10, 2023. The proposed assessment in Docket No.
LAKE 2024-0057 was delivered to the operator on May 18, 2023, and became a
final order of the Commission on June 19, 2023. The proposed assessment in
Docket No. LAKE 2024-0058 was delivered to the operator on July 11, 2023, and
became a final order of the Commission on August 10, 2023. The proposed
assessment in Docket No. LAKE 2024-0059 was delivered to the operator on August
18, 2023, and became a final order of the Commission on September 18, 2023. The
Secretary’s records do not specify the final order date for Docket No. LAKE
2024-0060. However, the statement date for the proposed assessment in this case
was September 13, 2023.

        Leesville

asserts that its former Safety Director had limited experience with contesting
citations, failed to understand the assessment process, and did not timely contest
assessments. Mine management received a notice from MSHA that the mine’s enforcement
history “was trending in the wrong direction and could lead to a Pattern of
Violations consideration.” Operator’s Affidavit at 3. On November 1, 2023, Leesville
hired a new experienced safety director to handle proposed assessments and mine
safety and health-related duties. Upon assuming the position, the new safety
director discovered numerous failures by his predecessor and promptly took
steps to file motions to reopen and implement new procedures for ensuring
proposed assessments are timely evaluated and contested. The operator claims to
be resolving outstanding delinquencies and working with MSHA to improve mine
safety and health conditions. They claim the new Safety Director has made
significant improvements and seeks reopening to contest a discrete number of citations.
In
view of Leesville’s changes and willingness to work with MSHA, the Secretary
does not oppose the motion to reopen.

In Docket No. LAKE 2024-0051, the motion
to reopen was filed more than one year after becoming a final order. Under
Federal Rule of Procedure 60(c), motions to reopen alleging mistake,
inadvertence or excusable neglect must be made no more than a year after entry
of the final order. J S Sand & Gravel, Inc. , 26 FMSHRC 795, 796
(Oct. 2004). Therefore, Leeville’s motion as to this case is untimely and is
denied with prejudice.

        In

the remaining cases, having reviewed Leesville’s
request and the Secretary’s response, we
find that the failure to contest was the result of a single employee failing to
understand the contest procedures. Leesville’s prompt action upon discovering
the issue and willingness to hire additional support to work with MSHA
constitute a basis for reopening. Vulcan Electrical Servs. , 45 FMSHRC 597,
98 (July 11, 2023) (reopening when an employee did not understand the
significance of the timing for filing a contest and the operator took prompt
action to correct the issue).

In the interest of justice, we hereby reopen these
matters and remand it to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for further
proceedings pursuant to the Mine Act and the Commission’s Procedural Rules, 29
C.F.R. Part 2700. Accordingly, consistent with Rule 28, the Secretary
shall file a petition for assessment of penalty within 45 days of the date of
this order. See 29 C.F.R. § 2700.28.

/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

Distribution:

Christopher
D. Pence, Esq.

Pence
Law Firm, PLLC

10
Hale Street, 4 th Floor

Charleston,
WV 25301

[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

Office
of the Chief Administrative Law Judge

1331
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 520N

Washington,
DC 20004-1710

[email protected]

[1] For the limited
purpose of addressing these motions to reopen, we hereby consolidate these
matters because they involve similar factual and procedural issues. 29 C.F.R. §
2700.12.