Zaji Obatala Zajradhara v. Taga, Inc., d/b/a EZ Outlet

19 OCAHO no. 1577 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER ZAJI OBATALA ZAJRADHARA, Complainant, v. TAGA INC., D/B/A EZ OUTLET, Respondent. May 30, 2024 8 U.S.C. § 1324b Proceeding OCAHO Case No. 2024B00064 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE On March 7, 2024, Complainant, Zaji Obatala Zajradhara, filed a complaint with the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) against Respondent, Taga, Inc., d/b/a EZ Outlet (hereinafter “Taga, Inc.”). Complainant alleges that Respondent engaged in citizenship status discrimination, national origin discrimination, and retaliation in violation of the antidiscrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324b(a)(1) and (a)(5). The Chief Administrative Hearing Officer sent Respondent a Notice of Case Assignment for Complaint Alleging Unfair Immigration-Related Employment Practices (NOCA), as well as a copy of the Complaint, on March 18, 2024, via United States Postal Service (USPS) certified mail.

The NOCA stated that these proceedings would be governed by OCAHO rules1 and applicable case law. Notice Case Assign. 1. It also directed Respondent to file an answer within thirty (30) days or risk judgment by default.

Id. at 3 (citing 28 C.F.R. §§ 68.3(b), 68.9, 68.9(b . The USPS website’s tracking service indicates that the Complaint and NOCA were “delivered, individual picked up at post office” on April 4, 2024. The Court received a completed domestic return receipt (PS Form 3811), dated April 4, 2024, with a printed name in the “Received by” section and a signature, suggesting proper service. Therefore, an answer was due no later than May 6, 2024.2 28 C.F.R. §§ 68.3(a), 68.3(b), 68.9(a).

To date, Respondent has not filed an answer. 1 OCAHO Rules of Practice and Procedure, 28 C.F.R. pt. 68 (2022). 2 The deadline accounts for the fact that May 4, 2024, was a Saturday. See 28 C.F.R. § 68.8(a).

19 OCAHO no. 1577 Per OCAHO rules, a “[f]ailure of the respondent to file an answer within the time provided may be deemed to constitute a waiver of his or her right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint. The Administrative Law Judge may enter a judgment by default.” 28 C.F.R. § 68.9(b). “If a default judgment is entered . . . judgment is entered for the complainant without a hearing.” United States v. Cabello Recovery and Auction Servs., Inc., 18 OCAHO no. 1514, 2 (2024) (quoting Nickman v. Mesa Air Grp., 9 OCAHO no. 1106, 1 (2004 ; United States v. Glen Echo Pharmacy, Inc., 18 OCAHO no. 1520, 2 (2024) (same).3 The Court therefore ORDERS Respondent, Taga, Inc., to file an answer that satisfies 28 C.F.R. § 68.9(c) within twenty-one (21) days of this Order. This answer should include (1) “[a] statement that the respondent admits, denies, or does not have and is unable to obtain sufficient information to admit or deny each allegation” and (2) “[a] statement of the facts supporting each affirmative defense.” 28 C.F.R. § 68.9(c)(1)–(2).

The Court FURTHER ORDERS Respondent, Taga, Inc., to demonstrate good cause within twenty-one (21) days of this Order for not timely filing an answer by May 6, 2024. See United States v. ALCO Constr., Inc., 18 OCAHO no. 1517, 4 (2024) (requiring a showing of good cause for failure to timely file an answer). In this filing, Respondent shall also confirm a preferred mailing address at which it will receive service of this Court’s orders for the remainder of this case. If Respondent does not file an answer and show good cause for its initial failure to timely file an answer, the Court may enter judgment by default against Respondent, pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 68.9(b).

SO ORDERED.

Dated and entered on May 30, 2024. __________________________________ Honorable Jean C. King Chief Administrative Law Judge 3 Citations to OCAHO precedents reprinted in bound Volumes 1 through 8 reflect the volume number and the case number of the particular decision, followed by the specific page in that volume where the decision begins; the pinpoint citations which follow are thus to the pages, seriatim, of the specific entire volume. Pinpoint citations to OCAHO precedents subsequent to Volume 8, where the decision has not yet reprinted in a bound volume, are to pages within the original issuances; the beginning page number of an unbound case will always be 1, and is accordingly omitted from the citation. Published decisions may be accessed in the Westlaw database “FIM-OCAHO,” or in the LexisNexis database “OCAHO,” or on the website at http://www.justice.gov/eoir/OcahoMain/ocahosibpage.htm#PubDecOrders. 2