United States v. WSC Plumbing, Inc.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER ____________________________________ Complainant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ____________________________________) WSC PLUMBING, INC., Respondent. v. 8 U.S.C. § 1324a Proceeding OCAHO Case No. 99A00054 Judge Robert L. Barton, Jr. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER (September 7, 2000) I. INTRODUCTION On July 17, 2000, WSC Plumbing, Inc. (Respondent) filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Answer to add six affirmative defenses. The United States of America (Complainant) filed its Opposition to Respondent’s Motion on August 24, 2000. Respondent’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, Respondent may amend its Answer to add (1) the statute of limitations defense with respect to Count II of the Complaint, (2) the “excessive fines” defense, and (3) the “inability to pay civil money penalties” defense.

However, Respondent’s motion to amend is denied to the extent it seeks to add affirmative defenses alleging (1) that the Notice of Intent to Fine (NIF) was improperly served, (2) that it may not be held liable for “cured” paperwork violations, or (3) that 8 C.F.R. § 274a.2(b)(1)(v) is an invalid regulation. Respondent must file, by not later than October 10, 2000, a Second Amended Answer to the Complaint. In its Second Amended Answer, Respondent must provide a statement of facts in support of its statute of limitations and “excessive fines” defenses. The Amended Answer shall contain only those affirmative defenses permitted by this Order.

Finally, the parties are expected to confer, either in person or by telephone, concerning a revised joint procedural schedule and to file, not later than October 10, 2000, a REVISED JOINT PROPOSED PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE. If the parties cannot agree on a joint schedule, they