554 Bloomfield LLC
ASBCA No. 58819
| A.S.B.C.A. | Feb 1, 2017Background
- Appellant (554 Bloomfield LLC) filed an appeal with the ASBCA on August 8, 2013.
- The appellant requested dismissal without prejudice on January 7, 2015; the Board granted dismissal without objection.
- The parties jointly extended the dismissal through March 31, 2016; the Board later issued a dismissal-without-prejudice order on April 6, 2016 that would convert to dismissal with prejudice unless the appeal was reinstated within six months (by October 6, 2016).
- No party sought reinstatement by the October 6 deadline, so the dismissal converted to one with prejudice by operation of law.
- On October 18, 2016, appellant (pro se) asked the Board to reinstate the appeal and schedule binding arbitration; the government opposed, noting appellant offered no reason for missing the deadline.
- The Board denied the reinstatement request (Dec. 12, 2016) and denied appellant's motion for reconsideration (Jan. 9, 2017), finding finality outweighed reopening where appellant had offered no explanation for missing the deadline until its reconsideration motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board should reinstate the appeal after dismissal converted to dismissal with prejudice by operation of law | Appellant sought reinstatement and arbitration; implicitly argued timeliness or entitlement to reopen (offered no substantive reason at the time) | Government argued appellant offered no basis for missing the reinstatement deadline and opposed reopening | Board denied reinstatement: although request was timely after the deadline, appellant offered no excuse (no "excusable neglect") and finality outweighed reopening |
| Whether the Board should grant reconsideration of its denial based on pro se oversight | Appellant (in reconsideration) claimed pro se status and that it mistakenly believed it had until the end of October to request reinstatement | Government relied on prior opposition that appellant had given no reason and that reopening was improper | Board denied reconsideration: appellant failed to raise the pro se/oversight explanation earlier and may not get a "second bite"; lack of excuse justified maintaining finality |
Key Cases Cited
- None with official reporter citations (the opinion cites ASBCA precedent and the Board's prior decisions but no authoritative reporter-cited cases).