LABOR, US SECRETARY v. SULLIVAN GRANITE CO LLC et al

Filing 40

ORDER granting 37 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; granting 39 Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
HILDA L. SOLIS, Secretary of Labor,
United States Department of Labor,
Plaintiff,
v.
SULLIVAN GRANITE CO., LLC and
CONRAD J. SMITH,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:10-cv-00456-JAW

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS
On November 4, 2010, Hilda L. Solis, the Secretary of Labor, filed this action
for injunctive relief against Sullivan Granite Co., LLC and Conrad J. Smith,
seeking to enjoin the Defendants from interfering with the Department of Labor’s
(DOL) attempts to enforce the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. Compl.
(Docket # 1). On November 24, 2010, the Court issued a temporary restraining
order and on December 9, 2010, by agreement of the parties, it issued a preliminary
injunction. Order on Mot. for TRO (Docket # 17); Order on Prelim. Inj. (Docket #
29). The case continued to proceed and on October 5, 2011, the Court held a Final
Pretrial Conference before Magistrate Judge Kravchuk. On September 28, 2011,
the Defendants filed a Pretrial Memorandum; the DOL did not.

Final Pretrial

Mem. (Docket # 32). On October 5, 2011, the Defendants came to the scheduled
Final Pretrial Conference; the DOL did not.

Order (Docket 38). On October 5,

2011, the Defendants moved to dismiss the DOL’s Complaint based on the DOL’s

failure to appear. Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss (Docket # 37). On October 14, 2011, the
DOL moved to dismiss the case because the Defendants were no longer interfering
with the DOL and a permanent injunction was no longer necessary. Pl.’s Notice of
Dismissal (Docket # 39).
The DOL should know that the Court does not condone its unusual failure to
file a court-ordered final pretrial memorandum and to appear at a court-ordered
pretrial conference.

In its motion to dismiss, the DOL did not mention the

Magistrate Judge’s Court Order, which discussed the DOL’s decision to ignore the
Court Orders in this case, and it is ironic that the pro se Defendants obeyed the
Orders and the Government attorneys did not.

If the Defendants had become

compliant and the DOL had decided it was not necessary to proceed with the case, it
is understandable that the DOL decided not to unnecessarily expend scarce
governmental resources; however, it is not acceptable that in the interim, the DOL
simply ignored court orders.
Nevertheless, as all parties seek the same relief, the Court GRANTS
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket # 37) and Plaintiff’s Notice of Dismissal
(Docket # 39), and DISMISSES the Complaint without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 17th day of October, 2011

2