Secretary of Labor v. Rockwell Mining, LLC
Secretary of Labor v. Rockwell Mining, LLC (FMSHRC WEVA 2019-0479): Mistaken payment supported reopening with warning
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 2020, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Rockwell Mining had contested the citation but inadvertently paid the associated penalty when the proposed assessment arrived. The operator discovered the mistake and filed a reopening motion 30 days later. The Secretary did not oppose, and the Commission found excusable neglect, reopened the assessment, and remanded it. The Commission also noted that this was Rockwell's fifth reopening motion in 24 months and warned that similar future excuses might be denied.
Decision snapshot
- Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a); 30 C.F.R. §§ 2700.1(b), 2700.28
- Outcome: The final assessment was reopened and the matter was remanded.
- Key point: Mistaken payment supported relief here, but repeated reopening requests prompted an express warning about future motions.
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.
ROCKWELL MINING, LLC
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Docket No. WEVA 2019-0479
A.C. No. 46-08610-484227
BEFORE: Rajkovich, Chairman; Althen and Traynor, Commissioners
ORDER
BY THE COMMISSION:
This matter arises
under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.
(2012) (“Mine Act”). On December 9, 2019, the Commission received from Rockwell
Mining, LLC, (“Rockwell”) a motion seeking to reopen a penalty assessment that
had become a final order of the Commission pursuant to section 105(a) of the
Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 815(a).
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 was delivered on March 4, 2019, and became a final
order of the Commission on April 4, 2019. Rockwell’s motions say that it had
contested the citation at issue in this case, but inadvertently paid the
penalty when the proposed assessment was delivered. It learned of its mistake
on April 29 and filed a motion to reopen on May 29, 2019.
The Secretary does
not oppose the requests to reopen, but urges the operator to take steps to
ensure that future assessments are timely contested.
Having reviewed Rockwell’s requests and the Secretary’s responses, we
find that the operator has sufficiently explained its failure to timely contest
the citations at issue as the result of excusable neglect. However, we do note that this is the fifth motion to
reopen filed by the operator in the past 24 months. [1] The operator should heed the
Secretary’s admonition and take seriously its responsibilities under the Act
and should be aware that future motions relying on a similar excuse may be
denied.
In
the interest of justice, we hereby reopen this matter 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/ Marco M. Rajkovich,
Jr.
Marco
M. Rajkovich, Jr., Chairman
/s/
William I. Althen
William
I. Althen, Commissioner
/s/
Arthur R. Traynor, III
Arthur R.
Traynor, III, Commissioner
Distribution (by e-mail):
Mark E. Heath, Esq.
Spilman Thomas and Battle, PLLC
Attorneys for Rockwell Mining, LLC
Emily Toler Scott , Esq.
Office of the Solicitor
Chief Administrative Law Judge
Glenn Voisin
Federal Mine Safety & Health
Review Commission
Melanie Garris
Office of Civil Penalty
Compliance
Mine Safety and Health
Administration
[1] The third and fourth motions to reopen are pending
before the Commission. These motions rely on different facts and a different
rationale for reopening, and the operator is represented by a different law
firm in those motions, which are being consolidated and addressed in another
order.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read Commission precedent from 2020. Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.