Administrator, Wage and Hour Div., USDOL v. O'Bryan Composting, LLC

U.S. Department of Labor 	Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20210-0001
IN THE MATTER OF:
ADMINISTRATOR, WAGE AND HOUR
DIVISION, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
PROSECUTING PARTY,
v.
O’BRYAN COMPOSTING, LLC,
RESPONDENT.
ARB CASE NO. 2025-0065
ALJ CASE NO. 2023-TAE-00005
ALJ NATALIE A. APPETTA
DATE: April 22, 2026
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR STIPULATED DISMISSAL AND
CONSENT ORDER VACATING MARCH 31, 2025 ORDER, REVERSING
ADMINISTRATOR’S DETERMINATIONS, AND DISMISSING APPEAL
This case arises under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by
the Immigration and Reform Control Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a), 1184(a)
and (c), and 1188, and the implementing regulations at 20 C.F.R. Part 655 and 29
C.F.R. Part 501. On May 28, 2025, Respondent O’Bryan Composting, LLC appealed
Administrative Law Judge Natalie A. Appetta’s March 31, 2025 Order Addressing
Deputy Administrator’s Objection’s to O’Bryan Composting, LLC’s Amended
Prehearing Statement and Granting Default Decision to the Administrative Review
Board (Board).
In that decision, the ALJ issued a default decision in favor of the Deputy
Administrator of the United States Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division
and against Respondent for violations of 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.122(d)(1), (h)(4), and (j)(1).
The ALJ issued the default decision on the basis that Respondent had failed to
timely comply with discovery, comply with the ALJ’s discovery orders, or to
supplement its previous discovery responses, and imposed civil money penalties
totaling $8,541.

2
On June 18, 2025, the Board issued a Notice of Appeal Acceptance and
Briefing Order (Briefing Order), accepting the appeal and setting forth a briefing
schedule. After two successive extensions requested by Respondent to allow for
settlement discussions, Respondent filed an opening brief on August 13, 2025.
Subsequently, the Board granted the Administrator’s own two successive
unopposed motions for an extension of time to file a response brief. The
Administrator then informed the Board on February 17, 2026, that it would not file
a response brief and that it had begun discussions with Respondent to resolve the
case. Having received no further update from the parties, the Board ordered the
parties on April 1, 2026, to file a joint status report within 14 days, or it would
decide the appeal on the existing record.
On April 15, 2026, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Stipulated Dismissal
and Consent Order Vacating March 31, 2025 Order, Reversing Administrator’s
Determinations, and Dismissing Appeal. In that motion, the Administrator notifies
the Board it “no longer seeks to pursue its claims against Respondent for the stated
violations of 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.122(d)(1), (h)(4), and (j)(1), any claim for violation
giving rise to the March Order, or the March Order.”1
Citing Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b)(1) and (b)(3), the parties
now request that the Board vacate the ALJ’s March 31, 2025 order in which the
ALJ granted default judgment to the Administrator with respect to the 20 C.F.R. §§
655.122(d)(1), (h)(4), and (j)(1) violations, and imposed $8,541 in civil money
penalties. The parties request that the Board dismiss the Administrator’s claims
which led to the March 31, 2025 order, and that the dismissal “serve[ ] as a decision
on the merits in favor of Respondent.”2
Additionally, in the joint motion, the parties state that “Respondent expressly
reserves and does not waive any claim for attorney’s fees and expenses, including
under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504, and any other applicable
authority, including bad-faith fees.”3 In turn, the Administrator states that it does
not “waive, release, compromise, or forfeit any defense the Administrator may raise
1 	Joint Motion for Stipulated Dismissal and Consent Order Vacating March 31, 2025
Order, Reversing Administrator’s Determinations, and Dismissing Appeal (Joint Motion for
Stipulated Dismissal and Consent Order) at 3.
2 	Joint Motion for Stipulated Dismissal and Consent Order at 5.
3 	Joint Motion for Stipulated Dismissal and Consent Order at 4.

3
in response to any claim by Respondent for fees or expenses, including as to the
non-applicability of EAJA and the absence of any bad faith.”4
By consent of the parties, and consistent with Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 42, we VACATE the ALJ’s March 31, 2025 Order granting default
judgment to the Administrator with respect to violations of 20 C.F.R. §§
655.122(d)(1), (j)(1), and (h)(4) and the imposition of civil money penalties totaling
$8,541.00 and REVERSE the Administrator’s October 25, 2022 determinations
with respect to violations of 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.122(d)(1), (j)(1), and (h)(4). This case is
DISMISSED, with such dismissal serving as a decision on the merits in favor of
Respondent. This dismissal is without prejudice to Respondent’s right to seek
attorneys’ fees and expenses (including under 5 U.S.C. § 504 and/or based on bad
faith), and nothing in this Order shall be construed as a waiver of any such claim.
SO ORDERED.
RANDEL K. JOHNSON
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
THOMAS H. BURRELL
Administrative Appeals Judge
4 	Id.