| DOL Home > OALJ > Whistleblower > La Rosa v. Barcelo Plant Growers, Inc., 1996-STA-10 (ALJ Feb. 19, 1999) |
USDOL/OALJ Reporter
La Rosa v. Barcelo Plant Growers, Inc.,
1996-STA-10 (ALJ Feb. 19, 1999)
U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Administrative Law Judges
50 Fremont Street
Suite 2100
San Francisco, CA 94105
RECOMMENDED ORDER OF DISMISSAL
[Page 2]ORDER
Office of Administrative Law Judges
50 Fremont Street
Suite 2100
San Francisco, CA 94105
DATE: February 19, 1999
CASE NO: 1996-STA-10
In the Matter of
JOHN P. LA ROSA
Complainant
v.
BARCELO PLANT GROWERS, INC.
Respondent.
A hearing was held in this case on February 29, 1996 in San Diego, California. The case was submitted subject to the filing of a transcript, which was received on March 15, 1996. On April 8, 1996, I issued a Recommended Decision and Order dismissing Complainant's claim because the Complainant failed to establish that there was a violation of the "refusal to drive" section of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA). The Administrative Review Board (ARB) affirmed this conclusion but remanded the case back to me in order to consider whether the "complaint" section of the STAA was violated.
An Order to Show Cause was mailed to the parties on November 12, 1998, ordering the parties to notify the Court in writing whether the case should be submitted on the record or whether the party requests a hearing in order to introduce new evidence. The Order was mailed to complainant at his last known address: 1247 San Marcos Blvd., A-11, San Marcos, CA 92069; and, it was mailed to respondent at its last known address: 2919 Olive Hill Rd., Fallbrook, CA 92028.
[Page 2]
The United States Postal Office returned the orders addressed to complainant and respondent as undeliverable. The order addressed to the complainant was returned with a notation that complainant had moved and not left a forwarding address. On November 20, 1998, a legal technician at OALJ unsuccessfully attempted to locate complainant and respondent, and a Supplemental Notice was mailed to the parties on November 25, 1998. The United States Postal Office returned these orders as undeliverable.
All parties have an obligation to keep the Court advised of a current address for the service of papers. Freed v. Plastic Packaging Materials, Inc., 66 F.R.D. 550, 552 (1975); see also Carey v. King, 856 F. 2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, I recommend that the following Order be issued.
Case No. 96-STA-10 is hereby dismissed on the grounds of abandonment.
DONALD B. JARVIS
Administrative Law Judge
San Francisco, California
