Thursday, October 23, 2014

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
SCDMV vs. Melissa Trout

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles

PARTIES:
Appellant:
South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles

Respondents:
Melissa Trout
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
06-ALJ-21-0532-AP

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to ALC Rule 37, Appellant South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (Department) was required to file an appellate brief in the above-captioned matter with this Court “within fifteen (15) days after receipt of the Record on Appeal.” ALC Rule 37(A). The Division of Motor Vehicle Hearings filed the Record on Appeal in this matter, which included a transcript of the hearing below, on June 22, 2006. However, the Department did not file its appellate brief in this matter until July 31, 2006, some thirty-nine days later. In her brief in this matter, Respondent Melissa Trout argues, among other things, that this matter should be dismissed because of the Department’s failure to timely file its appellate brief. For the reasons set forth below, Respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted.

Pursuant to ALC Rule 38, this Court may dismiss an appeal where a party fails to timely file an appellate brief. That rule provides that:

Upon motion of any party, or on its own motion, an administrative law judge may dismiss an appeal for failure to comply with any of the rules of procedure for appeals, including the failure to comply with any of the time limits provided by this section.

ALC Rule 38 (emphasis added). By virtue of its request for an appeal, the Department had an obligation to advance its position in a timely fashion, and the Department was given ample time to do so. Nonetheless, the Department failed to timely file an appellate brief in support of its appeal or to request an extension of the time within which to file its brief. This case must, therefore, be dismissed. “There is a limit beyond which the court should not allow a litigant to consume the time of the court . . . .” Georganne Apparel, Inc. v. Todd, 303 S.C. 87, 92, 399 S.E.2d 16, 19 (Ct. App. 1990).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________

JOHN D. GEATHERS

Administrative Law Judge

October 16, 2006

Columbia, South Carolina