7 C.F.R. § 1.136

Answer

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Filing and service. Within 20 days after the service of the complaint (within 10 days in a proceeding under section 4(d) of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930), or such other time as may be specified therein, the respondent shall file with the Hearing Clerk an answer signed by the respondent or the attorney of record in the proceeding. The attorney may file an appearance of record prior to or simultaneously with the filing of the answer. The answer shall be served upon the complainant, and any other party of record, by the Hearing Clerk. As response to a petition for review of responsibly connected status, the Chief, PACA Branch, shall within ten days after being served by the Hearing Clerk with a petition for review, file with the Hearing Clerk a certified copy of the agency record upon which the Chief, PACA Branch, made the determination that the individual was responsibly connected to a licensee under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 7 U.S.C. 499a et seq., and such agency record shall become part of the record in the review proceeding.

(b) Contents. The answer shall:

(1) Clearly admit, deny, or explain each of the allegations of the Complaint and shall clearly set forth any defense asserted by the respondent; or

(2) State that the respondent admits all the facts alleged in the complaint; or

(3) State that the respondent admits the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and neither admits nor denies the remaining allegations and consents to the issuance of an order without further procedure.

(c) Default. Failure to file an answer within the time provided under paragraph (a) of this section shall be deemed, for purposes of the proceeding, an admission of the allegations in the Complaint, and failure to deny or otherwise respond to an allegation of the Complaint shall be deemed, for purposes of the proceeding, an admission of said allegation, unless the parties have agreed to a consent decision pursuant to § 1.138.

[42 FR 743, Jan. 4, 1977, as amended at 61 FR 11504, Mar. 21, 1996; 68 FR 6340, Feb. 7, 2003]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: Daul v. Meckus, 897 F. Supp. 606 (D.D.C. 1995).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Daul v. Meckus, 897 F. Supp. 606 (D.D.C. 1995). · cites it 3× “7 C.F.R. § 1.136 (c). The USDA therefore determined that Mr.”

Trimble v. United States Dep't of Agric., 87 F. App'x 456 (6th Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “Trimble failed to file an answer to the complaint within twenty days after service of the complaint as required by 7 C.F.R. § 1.136 (a). On March 11, 2002, the Hearing Clerk sent a letter to Trimble informing him that his answer to the complaint had not been filed within the…”

Lancelot Kollman Ramos v. US Dept. of Agric., 322 F. App'x 814 (11th Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “136(c) of the Rules of Practice, 7 C.F.R. § 1.136 (c), Kollman was deemed to have admitted the allegations in the Complaint.”

Coblentz v. United States Dep't of Agric., 89 F. App'x 484 (6th Cir. 2003). · cites it 4× “7 C.F.R. § 1.136 (a). “Failure to file an answer .”

Mitchell v. United States Dep't of Agric., 42 F. App'x 991 (9th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “See 7 C.F.R. §§ 1.136 , 1.147(c)(1). Therefore, the record supports the Secretary’s decision to sanction Mitchell for violations of the AWA.”

Joe Manis v. USDA (4th Cir. 2025). “7 C.F.R. § 1.136 (a). Any party to the proceeding is then entitled to a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) upon request.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.