HMR3-7141 LLC d/b/a Carl's Jr,

• Docket Number: 31-CA-192343

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes.

HMR3-7141 LLC d/b/a Carl’s Jr. and Los Angeles Workers Organizing Committee. Cases 31–CA– 192343, 31–CA–192345, and 31–CA–194874

November 21, 2017 DECISION AND ORDER

BY MEMBERS MCFERRAN, KAPLAN, AND EMANUEL

The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this case on the ground that the Respondent has failed to file an answer to the consolidated complaint and compliance specification. Upon a charge and amended charges filed by Los Angeles Workers Organizing Committee (the Union) on January 26, February 15, and June 27, 2017, respectively, in Case 31–CA–192343, a charge and amended charges filed by the Union on January 26, May 23, and June 27, 2017, respectively, in Case 31–CA– 192345, and a charge and amended charge filed by the Union on March 14 and June 27, 2017, respectively, in Case 31–CA–194874, the General Counsel issued an order consolidating cases, consolidated complaint, and compliance specification, on July 31, 2017, alleging that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act. The Respondent failed to file an answer.

On September 8, 2017, the General Counsel filed with the National Labor Relations Board a Motion for Default Judgment. Thereafter, on September 11, 2017, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be granted. The Respondent filed no response. The allegations in the motion are therefore undisputed.

The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.

Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment

Section 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations provides that the allegations in a complaint shall be deemed admitted if an answer is not filed within 14 days of service of the complaint, unless good cause is shown. Similarly, Section 102.56 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations provides that the allegations in a compliance specification will be taken as true if an answer is not filed within 21 days from service of the compliance specification. In addition, the consolidated complaint and compliance specification affirmatively stated that unless an answer was received by August 21, 2017, the Board may find, pursuant to a motion for default judgment, that the allegations in the consolidated complaint and compli-

ance specification are true. Further, the undisputed allegations in the General Counsel’s motion disclose that the Region, by letter dated August 22, 2017, advised the Respondent that unless an answer was received by August 28, 2017, a motion for default judgment would be filed.

On August 23, 2017, the Respondent’s representative, Michael Razipour, sent an email to the General Counsel in response to the August 22, 2017 letter, requesting an extension of time until September 10, 2017, to file an answer to the consolidated complaint and compliance specification. By letter dated August 23, 2017, the General Counsel informed the Respondent that it had until noon on September 1, 2017, to file its answer. The letter also informed the Respondent that the Region would file a motion for default judgment with the Board should the Respondent fail to file an answer by that date. Nevertheless, the...