Administrative Review Board Decisions
The following case summaries were created by the Administrative Review Board staff.
Trivedi v. General Electric, ARB No. 2022-0026, ALJ No. 2022-SOX-00005 (ARB Oct. 24, 2023) (Order Denying Complainant's Third Motion for Reconsideration)
ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION; RECONSIDERATION DENIED WHERE COMPLAINANT DID NOT FILE MOTION WITHIN REASONABLE TIME
In Trivedi v. General Electric and GE Healthcare, ARB No. 2022-0026, ALJ No. 2022-SOX-00005 (ARB Oct. 24, 2023), Complainant filed a motion to amend her pleading on August 20, 2023. However, there was no pleading or other filing pending before the ARB to amend. The last event in this case was the ARB's January 27, 2023 denial of Complainant's second request for reconsideration. As such, the ARB treated Complainant's motion to amend as a third request for reconsideration.
The ARB is authorized to reconsider a decision upon receiving a reconsideration within a reasonable time of the date on which the decision was issued. The ARB has presumed a motion for reconsideration is timely when the motion was filed within a short time after the decision. Given that Complainant filed her third motion for reconsideration over six months after the ARB denied her second motion for reconsideration, the ARB found that Complainant did not file her motion within a reasonable time. Accordingly, the ARB denied Complainant's motion.
Collins v. Next Marketing, Inc., ARB No. 2023-0057, ALJ No. 2023-STA-00003 (ARB Oct. 24, 2023) (Decision and Order)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL; MATTER DISMISSED WHERE COMPLAINANT DECLINED TO PROSECUTE APPEAL
In Collins v. Next Marketing, Inc., ARB No. 2023-0057, ALJ No. 2023-STA-00003 (ARB Oct. 24, 2023), Complainant filed a document with the ARB which appeared to be a copy of the ALJ's Order of Dismissal. The document did not identify any objections to the ALJ's conclusions or orders as required to constitute a petition for review under STAA's implementing regulations. Additionally, Complainant's filing was made 48 days after the ALJ issued the Order of Dismissal, rendering Complainant's attempt to seek review of the ALJ's Order untimely.
Accordingly, on September 29, 2023, the ARB issued an Order to Show Cause directing the Complainant to show cause as to why his appeal should not be dismissed for his (1) failing to file a petition for review identifying objections to the conclusions or orders of the ALJ; and (2) failing to file a timely petition for review with the Board. Complainant failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause as directed. The ARB dismissed the matter after Complainant failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause.
Ass't Sec'y & Becker v. Smithstonian Materials, LLC, ARB No. 2021-0048, ALJ No. 2013-STA-00050 (ARB Oct. 18, 2023) (Decision and Order on Reconsideration) (modifying August 10, 2023 ARB Decision and Order related to interest only)
ACCRUED INTEREST (FOR SUMMARIES ON ALL OTHER ISSUES SEE THE NOTICE FOR THE AUGUST 10, 2023 DECISION AND ORDER LISTING FOR AUGUST 2023)
In Ass't Sec'y & Becker v. Smithstonian Materials, LLC, ARB No. 2021-0048, ALJ No. 2013-STA-00050 (ARB Oct. 18, 2023), the ARB issued a Decision and Order on Reconsideration, in which the ARB restated the Decision and Order in full and made changes related only to its order regarding interest. The ARB ordered pre-judgement and post-judgement interest to accrue on the principal amount owed until the date the award was paid.
Gates v. UPS Freight, ARB No. 2023-0039, ALJ No. 2021-STA-00011 (ARB Oct. 6, 2023) (Order of Dismissal)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL; COMPLAINANT FAILED TO FILE AN OPENING BRIEF
In Gates v. UPS Freight, ARB No. 2023-0039, ALJ No. 2021-STA-00011 (ARB Oct. 6, 2023), the ARB dismissed Complainant's Petition for Review for failing to file his opening brief.
On June 21, 2023, Complainant filed a document with the ARB which appeared to be a copy of the publicly available D. & O. The document did not identify any objections to the ALJ's conclusions or orders as required to constitute a petition for review under STAA's implementing regulations. In response, on June 29, 2023, the ARB issued an Order to Show Cause directing Complainant to file a brief showing cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to file a petition for review identifying objections to the conclusions or orders of the ALJ.
On July 7, 2023, Complainant responded to the Order to Show Cause and filed a Petition for Review on July 8, 2023. On July 20, 2023, the ARB issued a Notice of Appeal Acceptance, Electronic Filing Requirements, and Briefing Schedule (Briefing Schedule) finding that Complainant had shown good cause and exercising its discretion to accept Complainant's Petition for Review. The Briefing Schedule required Complainant to file an Opening Brief within 28 days. Complainant did not file an Opening Brief as ordered.
Consequently, on September 5, 2023, the ARB issued an Order to Show Cause (Second Order to Show Cause) ordering Complainant to explain why the ARB should not dismiss his appeal for his failing to timely file an opening brief. Complainant did not file a response or an opening brief. Accordingly, the ARB dismissed Complainant's appeal.