1512 ANIMAL WELFARE ACT In re: DAVID W. LANCE dba JUST QUALITY PETS. Decision and Order issued by Edwin S. Bernstein, Administrative Law Judge. Preliminary Statement This proceeding was instituted under the Animal Welfare Act ("Act"), as amended (7 U.S.C. § 2131 et seq.), by a complaint filed by the Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture, alleging that the respondent willfully violated the Act. Copies of the complaint and the Rules of Practice governing proceedings under the Act, 7 C.F.R. §§ 1.130-1.151, were served on the respondent David Lance by APHIS officials by depositing them through the mail slot of his apartment after he entered the apartment on November 9, 1993. Respondent was informed in the letter of service that an answer should be filed pursuant to the Rules of Practice and that failure to answer any allegation in the complaint would constitute an admission of that allegation. Respondent David W. Lance has failed to file an answer within the time prescribed in the Rules of Practice, and the material facts alleged in the complaint, which are admitted by respondent's failure to file an answer, are adopted and set forth herein as Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. This decision and order, therefore, is issued pursuant to section 1.139 of the Rules of Practice, 7 C.F.R. § 1.139. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law I. A. David W. Lance, dba Just Quality Pets, hereinafter referred to as respondent, is an individual whose address is 6825 Ditman Street, Philadelphia, PA 19135. 53 Agric. Dec. 1512 B. The respondent, at all times material herein, was operating as a dealer as defined in the Act and the regulations. II. From on or about April 22, 1991, to on or about December 19, 1991, the respondent operated as a dealer as defined in the Act and regulations without being licensed, in willful violation of section 4 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2134) and section 2.1 of the regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.1 (1992)). Respondent sold, in commerce, at least 138 animals for resale for use as pets. The sale of each animal constitutes a separate violation. Conclusions 1. The Secretary has jurisdiction in this matter. 2. The following Order is authorized by the Act and warranted under the circumstances. Order 1. Respondent, his agents and employees, successors and assigns, directly or through any corporate or other device, shall cease and desist from violating the Act and the regulations and standards issued thereunder, and in particular, shall cease and desist from engaging in any activity for which a license is required under the Act and regulations without being licensed as required. 2. Respondent is assessed a civil penalty of $10,000 which shall be paid by a certified check or money order made payable to the Treasurer of United States. 3. Respondent is disqualified for a period of one year from becoming licensed under the Act and regulations. The provisions of this order shall become effective on the first day after this decision becomes final. Pursuant to the Rules of Practice, this decision becomes final without further proceedings 35 days after service as provided in section 1.142 and 1.145 of the Rules of Practice, 7 C.F.R. §§ 1.142 and 1.145. Copies of this decision shall be served upon the parties. [This Decision and Order became final September 21, 1994.-Editor] In re: JAMES JOSEPH HICKEY, JR., d/b/a S & H SUPPLY CO., AND JERRY R. BRANTON. AWA Docket No. 94-09. Decision and Order as to Jerry R. Branton filed July 18, 1994. Operating as dealer without license - Civil penalty - License disqualification. Tejal Mehta, for Complainant. Respondent, Pro se. Decision and Order issued by Dorothea A. Baker, Administrative Law Judge. Preliminary Statement This proceeding was instituted under the Animal Welfare Act ("Act"), as amended (7 U.S.C. § 2131 et seq.), by a complaint filed by the Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), United States. Department of Agriculture, alleging that Jerry R. Branton, hereafter, the Respondent willfully violated the Act. A copy of the complaint and the Rules of Practice governing proceedings under the Act, 7 C.F.R. §§ 1.130-1.151, was served on the Respondent on May 12, 1994, by an APHIS investigator. Respondent was informed in the letter of service that an answer should be filed pursuant to the Rules of Practice and that failure to answer any allegation in the complaint would constitute an admission of that allegation. The Respondent failed to file an answer within the time prescribed in the Rules of Practice, and the material facts alleged in the complaint, which are admitted by Respondent's failure to file an answer, are adopted and set forth herein as Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. This decision and order, therefore, is issued pursuant to section 1.139 of the Rules of Practice, 7 C.F.R. § 1.139. Findings of Fact (a) Jerry R. Branton, hereinafter referred to as respondent, is an individual whose address is Mile Post 0.95L, Kanaka Creek Road, Stevenson, Washington 98648. (b) From on or about October 24, 1989, and continuing to on or about June 28, 1990, respondent Jerry R. Branton was operating as a dealer as defined in the Act and regulations without having obtained a license, in willful 53 Agric. Dec. 1514 violation of section 4 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2134) and section 2.1 of the regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.1). Respondent offered for sale and sold at least 46 dogs and cats, which he did not breed or raise on his own premises, in commerce for use in research. The sale or offer for sale of each dog and cat constitutes a separate violation. (c) The Respondent, at all times material herein, was operating as a dealer as defined in the Act and the regulations. Conclusions 1. The Secretary has jurisdiction in this matter. 2. By reason of the facts set forth in the Findings of Fact above, the Respondent violated section 4 of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2134 and Section 2.1 of the regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.1). 3. The following Order is authorized by the Act and warranted under the circumstances. Order 1. Respondent, his agents and employees, successors and assigns, directly or through any corporate or other device, shall cease and desist from violating the Act and the regulations issued thereunder, and in particular, shall cease and desist from engaging in any activity for which a license is required under the Act and regulations without being licensed as required by the Act. 2. The Respondent is assessed a civil penalty of $ 2,500, which shall be paid by a certified check or money order made payable to the Treasurer of United States. 3. Respondent is disqualified from becoming licensed under the Act for a period of 1 year. The provisions of this order shall become effective on the first day after service of this decision on the Respondent. Pursuant to the Rules of Practice, this decision becomes final without further proceedings 35 days after service as provided in sections 1.142 and 1.145 of the Rules of Practice, 7 C.F.R. §§ 1.142 and 1.145, unless an appeal is made within thirty (30) days to the Judicial Officer, 7 C.F.R. § 1.131 et seq. Copies of this Order shall be served upon the parties. [This Decision and Order became final September 21, 1994.-Editor] In re: DAN LUDWIG. AWA Docket No. 94-13. Decision and Order filed September 19, 1994. Failure to file timely answer Failure to maintain records Violation of housekeeping provisions - Violation of veterinary cure provisions - Cease and desist order - Civil penalty License revocation. Sharlene A. Deskins, for complainant. Respondent, Pro se. Decision and Order issued by James W. Hunt, Administrative Law Judge. Preliminary Statement This proceeding was instituted under the Animal Welfare Act ("Act"), as amended (7 U.S.C. § 2131 et seq.), by a complaint filed by the Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), United States Department of Agriculture, alleging that respondent Dan Ludwig willfully violated the Act. A copy of the complaint and the Rules of Practice governing proceedings under the Act, 7 C.F.R. §§ 1.130-1.151, was sent to respondent by certified mail on May 19, 1994. Respondent was informed in the letter of service that an answer was to be filed within 20 days with the Hearing Clerk and that the failure to file a timely answer would constitute an admission of the allegations in the complaint and a waiver of his right to a hearing. The letter also told respondent that if he had any questions about a possible settlement to contact complainant's attorney whose name and address appeared at the end of the complaint. Respondent signed the return receipt for the complaint and answer, but the date is hardly legible. It appears to be either May 22 or May 23, 1994. In a letter dated June 21, 1994, the Hearing Clerk notified respondent that it had not received an answer "within the allotted time." In a handwritten letter postmarked June 30, 1994, and received by the Hearing Clerk on July 6, 1994, respondent, representing himself, stated in the letter that "I wrote four pages explaining these charges to you... please find it or let me know and I will do them again." He said he sent it to complainant's attorney at the "Office of the General Counsel U.S. Department of Agriculture." On July 11, 1994, complainant filed a motion for adoption of a decision and order on the ground that respondent had failed to file an answer. |