Marks v. Conopco, Inc., ARB No. 2025-0084, ALJ No. 2025-TAX-00017 (ARB Nov. 20, 2025) (Decision and Order Denying Interlocutory Appeal)
INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL; INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL DISMISSED FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH ARB ORDERS AND FOR FAILING TO MEET THE COLLATERAL ORDER TEST
In Marks v. Conopco, Inc., ARB No. 2025-0084, ALJ No. 2025-TAX-00017 (ARB Nov. 20, 2025), Complainant filed an interlocutory appeal of an ALJ's order declining to recuse herself from the proceedings. The ARB issued an Order to Show Cause on August 26, 2025, ordering Complainant to file a brief by September 9, 2025, explaining why the Board should not dismiss the appeal. The Board cautioned Complainant that "[f]ailure to timely respond to this Order may result in dismissal of the appeal without further order." At Complainant's request, the ARB extended Complainant's deadline to respond to the Order to Show Cause to October 9, 2025. Again, the ARB cautioned Complainant that "if he fails to file a timely and conforming brief in response to the Order to Show Cause, the Board may dismiss this appeal without further notice." The Board also stated that "further extension requests by Complainant will not be granted, unless justified by extraordinary circumstances and supported by appropriate documentation."
Despite the Board's warning, Complainant did not file a response to the Order to Show Cause. The ARB stated that Complainant's failure to file a response to the Order to Show Cause justified dismissing the appeal.
Additionally, the ARB determined that Complainant's appeal did not satisfy the collateral order test, and thus did not involve "exceptional circumstances" that would justify immediate interlocutory review. To fall within the "collateral order" exception, the order appealed must: (1) conclusively determine the disputed question; (2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action; and (3) be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. The ARB stated that the denial of a motion for recusal is not subject to interlocutory review because disqualification issues are fully reviewable on appeal from the ALJ's final decision.
Monk v. Hubbell Inc., ARB No. 2025-0091, ALJ No. 2021-PSI-00003 (ARB Nov. 18, 2025) (Order of Administrative Closure)
ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE; ARB ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED CASE WHERE COMPLAINANT DID NOT FILE PETITION FOR REVIEW
In Monk v. Hubbell Inc., ARB No. 2025-0091, ALJ No. 2021-PSI-00003 (ARB Nov. 18, 2025), the ALJ issued a D. & O. denying Complainant's complaint on August 27, 2025. Complainant subsequently filed a document that appeared to be a copy of the publicly available D. & O. with the ARB. The document did not identify any objections to the ALJ's conclusions or orders and did not otherwise qualify as a "written petition for review" under the PSIA's implementing regulations. The ARB issued an Order directing Complainant to file a petition for review on or before October 2, 2025.
Complainant did not file a petition for review as ordered. Given Complainant's failure to file a petition for review as ordered, the ARB administratively closed the matter.