DEFAULT DECISIONS ANIMAL QUARANTINE AND RELATED LAWS In re: ELENA M. TOMESCU. A.Q. Docket No. 01-0005. Decision Without Hearing By Reason of Default. Filed October 15, 2001. AQ-Default - Failure to answer. Rick Herndon, for Complainant. Respondent, Pro se. Decision and Order issued by Jill S. Clifton, Administrative Law Judge. This is an administrative proceeding for the assessment of a civil penalty for a violation of the regulations governing the movement of animal products (9 C.F.R. § 94 et seq.), hereinafter referred to as the regulations, in accordance with the Rules of Practice in 7 C.F.R. §§ 1.130 et seq. and 380.1 et seq. This proceeding was instituted under the Act of August 30, 1890, as amended (21 U.S.C. §§102-105), the Act of February 2, 1903, as amended (21 U.S.C. §111), and the Act of July 2, 1962 (21 U.S.C. §134a-134f)(Acts), and the regulations promulgated thereunder (9 C.F.R. §94 et seq.) (regulations), by a complaint filed on March 12, 2001, by the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture. The respondent failed to file an answer within the time prescribed in 7 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). Section 1.136(c) of the Rules of Practice (7 C.F.R. § 1.136(c)) provides that the failure to file an answer within the time provided under 7 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) shall be deemed an admission of the allegations in the complaint. Further, the admission of the allegations in the complaint constitutes a waiver of hearing. (7 C.F.R. § 1.139). Accordingly, the material allegations in the complaint are adopted and set forth in this Default Decision as the Findings of Fact, and this Decision is issued pursuant to section 1.139 of the Rules of Practice applicable to this proceeding. (7 C.F.R. § 1.139). Findings of Fact 1. Elena M. Tomescu, herein referred to as the respondent, is an individual whose mailing address is 1452 West 81" Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44102. 2. On or about June 14, 2000, the respondent imported one kilogram of pork salami into the United States from Romania at Detroit, Michigan, in violation of 9 C.F.R. §94, because the importation of pork from Romania into the United States is prohibited. 61 Agric. Dec. 294 Conclusion By reason of the Findings of Fact set forth above, the respondent has violated the Acts and the regulations issued under the Acts. Therefore, the following Order is issued. Order The respondent is hereby assessed a civil penalty of five hundred dollars ($500.00). This penalty shall be payable to the "Treasurer of the United States" by certified check or money order, and shall be forwarded within thirty (30) days from the effective date of this Order to: United States Department of Agriculture P.O. Box 3334 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 Respondent shall indicate that payment is in reference to A.Q. Docket No. 010005. This order shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing and shall be final and effective thirty five (35) days after service of this Default Decision and Order upon respondent, unless there is an appeal to the Judicial Officer pursuant to section 1.145 of the Rules of Practice applicable to this proceeding. (7 C.F.R. § 1.145). [This Decision and Order became final March 14, 2002.-Editor] ANIMAL WELFARE ACT In re: STAN LOVETT AND KATHY LOVETT. AWA Docket No. 01-0035. Decision Without Hearing By Reason Of Default. AWA - Default - Failure to answer. Donald Tracy, 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, United States Department of Agriculture, alleging that the respondents willfully violated the Act. Respondent Kathy Lovett signed the certified mail receipt for a copy of the complaint and the Rules of Practice governing proceedings under the Act, 7 C.F.R. §§ 1.130-1.151, on May 16, 2001. Respondent Stan Lovett signed the certified mail receipt for a copy of the complaint and the Rules of Practice governing proceedings under the Act, 7 C.F.R. §§ 1.130-1.151, on May 17, 2001. Respondents were 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. Respondents Stan and Kathy Lovett have 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 as set forth herein by respondents' 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. 1. Stan Lovett and Kathy Lovett, hereinafter referred to as respondents, are individuals whose address is 19249 Beaver Lane, Hitchcock, South Dakota 57348. 2. The respondents, at all times material herein, were operating as a dealers as defined in the Act and the regulations. 61 Agric. Dec. 296 3. When respondents became licensed and annually thereafter, respondents received copies of the Animal Welfare Act and the regulations and standards issued thereunder and agreed in writing to comply with them. 4. The respondents, at all times material herein, were operating as dealers as defined in the Act and the regulations, without having obtained a license, 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). Respondents sold, in commerce, dogs to a licensed dealer on thirteen occasions. The sale of each animal constitutes a separate violation. Each violation occurred on or about the date listed in the following table: 1. The Secretary has jurisdiction in this matter. 2. The following Order is authorized by the Act and warranted under the circumstances. Order 1. Respondents, their 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. The respondents are jointly and severally assessed a civil penalty of $3,750.00, which shall be paid by a certified check or money order made payable to the Treasurer of United States. 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 February 20, 2002.-Editor] In re: RANDY AND LINDA DAUGHERTY, d/b/a LIN-SHE-RAN. Decision Without Hearing By Reason Of Default. Filed February 28, 2002. AWA-Default - Failure to answer. Frank Martin, Jr., for Complainant. Respondents, Pro se. Decision and Order issued by Dorothea A. Baker. Administrative Law Judge. 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 Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture, alleging that the respondents wilfully violated the Act and the regulations and standards issued thereunder (9 C.F.R. § 1.1 et seq.). Copies of the Complaint and the Rules of Practice governing proceedings under the Act, 7 C.F.R. §§ 1.130-1.151, were personally served upon the respondents. Respondents were 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. Respondents failed to file an Answer addressing the allegations contained in the complaint within the time prescribed in the Rules of Practice. Therefore, the material facts alleged in the Complaint, which are admitted by respondents' |