Opinion
C. A. No. SN09A-04-002 CLS.
Submitted: November 2, 2009.
Decided: March 4, 2010.
Upon Appeal from the Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
Remanded.ORDER
Introduction
Before the Court is Appellant Janie Stephano's ("Stephano") appeal from the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("Board") wherein the Board determined that Stephano was not entitled to further review of her claim. Having reviewed Claimant's submission and the record below, the Court concludes that Stephano's Appeal shall be granted and the case remanded.
Facts
The relevant facts are as follows. Stephano's claim for unemployment benefits was filed on December 24, 2008. On January 8, 2009, the Claims Deputy determined that Stephano was not entitled to unemployment benefits. The decision of the Claims Deputy became final on January 18, 2009. On January 22, 2009, Stephano appealed the decision and a hearing was scheduled for February 5, 2009.
According to Stephano, she wrote a letter withdrawing her appeal because she was unable to attend the hearing scheduled for the February date. On February 5, 2009, the hearing was held to determine the issue of timeliness of Stephano's appeal. Because Stephano was not present to prosecute her appeal, the case was dismissed and the decision of the Claims Deputy was determined to be final and binding. The decision was mailed to Stephano's last address of record and was not returned to the Department of Labor as undeliverable. The final day to appeal the decision was February 15, 2009. Stephano did not appeal to the Board until either March 6, 2009 or March 24, 2009. On March 25, 2009, the decision of the Appeals Referee was reviewed and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied Stephano's application for further review. This appeal followed.
A copy of Stephano's withdrawal letter is attached to her appeal, however, there is no information about what happened to this letter and whether the proper parties every received it.
The dates are inconsistent in the record.
On June 16, 2009, the court issued a briefing schedule for this case. Stephano submitted her timely appeal on July 6, 2009. In accordance with the briefing schedule, the Appellee's Answering Brief was due on July 27, 2009. On September 14, 2009 and October 6, 2009, a final delinquent brief notice was sent to Dave's Limousine, Inc. No Answer has ever been filed on behalf of Dave's Limousine, Inc.
Discussion
Pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 107(e):
If any brief, memorandum . . . or any other paper which is or should be a part of a case pending in this Court, is not served and filed within the time and in the manner required by these Rules or in accordance with any order of the Court . . . the Court may, in its discretion, . . . dismiss the proceeding if the Plaintiff is in default, consider the motion as abandoned, or summarily deny or grant the motion, such as the situation may present itself, or take such action as it deems necessary to expedite the disposition of the case.
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 107(e).
Based on the language of Civil Rule 107(e), the Court has discretion in handling matters where the record is incomplete due to a party's failure to file a response to a pending motion. In the current case, Appellee failed to file an Answer even after the Court issued two delinquent notices. Based on the Motion before the Court and pursuant to Civil Rule 107(e), the Court grants Stephano's Appeal and determines that Stephano shall receive a hearing on the merits of the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.