<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
		<title>Document</title>
		<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8"/>
		<style type="text/css">
 p.hiddenParagraph { visibility:hidden } 
 p { margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; color:WindowText; } 
 p { font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt;  }  p.style_Normal { font-size:12pt; } 
.style_Normal span { } 
 p.style_Heading2 { outline-width:2; text-align:right; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:13pt; } 
.style_Heading2 span { } 
 span.style_DefaultParagraphFont { } 
 table.style_TableNormal { } 
 p.style_p14 { margin-left:83.933px; widows:0; orphans:0; } 
 p.style_BalloonText { font-size:8pt; font-family:Tahoma; } 
.style_BalloonText span { font-family:Tahoma; } 
 span.style_BalloonTextChar { font-size:8pt; font-family:Tahoma; } 
.style_BalloonTextChar span { font-family:Tahoma; } 
 p.style_Header { } 
 span.style_HeaderChar { font-size:12pt; } 
.style_HeaderChar span { } 
 p.style_Footer { } 
 span.style_FooterChar { font-size:12pt; } 
.style_FooterChar span { } 
 p.style_t5 { widows:0; orphans:0; } 
 p.style_t6 { widows:0; orphans:0; } 
 p.style_ListParagraph { margin-left:48px; widows:0; orphans:0; } 
 span.style_FootnoteReference { } 
 p.style_FootnoteText { widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:10pt; } 
.style_FootnoteText span { } 
 span.style_FootnoteTextChar { } 
 span.style_Heading2Char { font-size:13pt; } 
.style_Heading2Char span { } 
 span.style_Hyperlink { color:#0000FF; text-decoration:underline ;} 
.style_Hyperlink span { color:#0000FF; text-decoration:underline ;} 
 span.style_UnresolvedMention { color:#605E5C; background-color:#E1DFDD; } 
.style_UnresolvedMention span { color:#605E5C; background-color:#E1DFDD; } 
 span.style_cohl { } 
 span.style_Emphasis { font-style:italic; } 
.style_Emphasis span { font-style:italic; } 
 span.style_costarpage { } 
 span.style_Strong { font-weight:bold; } 
.style_Strong span { font-weight:bold; } 
 span.style_cohighlightpoints { } 
 span.style_cohovertext { } 
 p.style_CM11 { line-height:normal; } 
 p.style_Default { font-size:12pt; color:#000000; } 
.style_Default span { color:#000000; } 
 span.style_SubtleEmphasis { font-style:italic; color:#404040; } 
.style_SubtleEmphasis span { font-style:italic; color:#404040; } 
 p.style_Revision { font-size:12pt; } 
.style_Revision span { } 
 span.style_CommentReference { font-size:8pt; } 
.style_CommentReference span { } 
 p.style_CommentText { font-size:10pt; } 
.style_CommentText span { } 
 span.style_CommentTextChar { } 
 p.style_CommentSubject { font-weight:bold; } 
.style_CommentSubject span { font-weight:bold; } 
 span.style_CommentSubjectChar { font-weight:bold; } 
.style_CommentSubjectChar span { font-weight:bold; } 
 span.X3AS7TOCHyperlink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } 
 p.X3AS7TABSTYLE { } 
 span.BulletSymbol { font-family:'Symbol'; } 
 body { margin-left:96px;margin-top:96px;margin-bottom:96px;margin-right:96px;} 
div.basic { width:16.51cm;height:22.86cm;} 
 p.hiddenParagraph { font-size:2pt; visibility:hidden; } 
</style>
		<script type="text/javascript">
							var useragent = navigator.userAgent;
							var navigatorname;
							if (useragent.indexOf('MSIE')!= -1)
							{
							navigatorname="MSIE";
							}
							else if (useragent.indexOf('Gecko')!= -1)
							{
							if (useragent.indexOf('Chrome')!= -1)
							navigatorname="Google Chrome";
							else
							navigatorname="Mozilla";
							}
							else if (useragent.indexOf('Mozilla')!= -1)
							{
							navigatorname="old Netscape or Mozilla";
							}
							else if (useragent.indexOf('Opera')!= -1)
							{
							navigatorname="Opera";
							}
							
							function symbol(code1,code2)
							{
							if (navigatorname == 'MSIE')
								document.write(code1);
							else
								document.write(code2);
							}
							</script>
	</head>
	<body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div class="basic"><div>
				<p></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:center; "><span style="font-size:11pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">United States of America</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:center; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; ">OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:center; "><span style="font-size:10pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:10pt; ">1120 20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:center; "><span style="font-size:10pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:10pt; ">Washington, DC 20036-3457</span></p>
			</div>
			<table style="border-collapse:collapse; width:16.792cm; align:left; margin-left:0cm; margin-bottom:0cm">
				<tr style="margin:0;border:0;padding:0;visibility:hidden;">
					<th style="width:304.667px;"/>
					<th style="width:330px;"/>
				</tr>
				<tr>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-left:.194cm; padding-right:.194cm; border-left:none, 0, inherit; border-right:dashed .026cm #000000; border-top:solid .026cm #000000; border-bottom:none, 0, inherit; width:8.061cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="margin-top:7.667px; margin-bottom:3.467px; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">SECRETARY OF LABOR,</span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-left:.194cm; padding-right:.194cm; border-left:none, 0, inherit; border-right:none, 0, inherit; border-top:none, 0, inherit; border-bottom:none, 0, inherit; width:8.731cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="margin-top:7.667px; margin-bottom:3.467px; text-align:center; "> </p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-left:.194cm; padding-right:.194cm; border-left:none, 0, inherit; border-right:dashed .026cm #000000; border-top:none, 0, inherit; border-bottom:none, 0, inherit; width:8.061cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="margin-top:7.667px; margin-bottom:3.467px; text-align:center; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Complainant,</span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-left:.194cm; padding-right:.194cm; border-left:none, 0, inherit; border-right:none, 0, inherit; border-top:none, 0, inherit; border-bottom:none, 0, inherit; width:8.731cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="margin-top:7.667px; margin-bottom:3.467px; text-align:center; "> </p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr style="height:.85cm; ">
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-left:.194cm; padding-right:.194cm; border-left:none, 0, inherit; border-right:dashed .026cm #000000; border-top:none, 0, inherit; border-bottom:none, 0, inherit; width:8.061cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="margin-top:7.667px; margin-bottom:3.467px; text-align:center; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">v.</span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-left:.194cm; padding-right:.194cm; border-left:none, 0, inherit; border-right:none, 0, inherit; border-top:none, 0, inherit; border-bottom:none, 0, inherit; width:8.731cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="margin-top:7.667px; margin-bottom:3.467px; text-align:center; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">OSHRC DOCKET N</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">os.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><br/></span>20-1029, 20-1030,<span><span></span>
								</span>20-1031, 20-1032, &<span><span></span>
								</span>20-1042</p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-left:.194cm; padding-right:.194cm; border-left:none, 0, inherit; border-right:dashed .026cm #000000; border-top:none, 0, inherit; border-bottom:none, 0, inherit; width:8.061cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="margin-right:-36.2px; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">JUAN<span>
									</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">G.<span>
									</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">QUEVEDO</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">-</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">GARCIA</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,</span></p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p style="margin-top:12px; margin-bottom:3.467px; text-align:center; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Respondent</span>.</p>
						</div>
					</td>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-left:.194cm; padding-right:.194cm; border-left:none, 0, inherit; border-right:none, 0, inherit; border-top:none, 0, inherit; border-bottom:none, 0, inherit; width:8.731cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="margin-top:7.667px; margin-bottom:3.467px; text-align:center; "> </p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr style="height:.841cm; ">
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-left:.194cm; padding-right:.194cm; border-left:none, 0, inherit; border-right:dashed .026cm #000000; border-top:none, 0, inherit; border-bottom:solid .026cm #000000; width:8.061cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="margin-top:7.667px; margin-bottom:3.467px; "> </p>
						</div>
					</td>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-left:.194cm; padding-right:.194cm; border-left:none, 0, inherit; border-right:none, 0, inherit; border-top:none, 0, inherit; border-bottom:none, 0, inherit; width:8.731cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="margin-top:7.667px; margin-bottom:3.467px; "> </p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
			</table>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:8px; ">APPEARANCES:</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:4px; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>For the Complainant:</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Alexander M. Kondo, Senior Trial Attorney</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-left:48px; text-indent:1.27cm; ">B. Carina De La Paz,<span>
					</span>Trial Attorney</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>U.S. Department of Labor</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>New York City,<span>
					</span>New York</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:4px; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>For the Respondent:</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Richard P.<span>
					</span>Galler, Esquire</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-left:48px; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Hackensack, New Jersey</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p>BEFORE:<span>
					</span><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>William S. Coleman</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>U. S.<span>
					</span>Administrative Law Judge</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:16px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;">DECISION AND ORDER</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:6.667px; line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">The<span><span></span>
					</span>parties have filed<span>
					</span>cross-motions for summary judgment on the sole<span><span></span>
					</span>issue<span><span></span>
					</span>remaining<span><span></span>
					</span>to be decided, which may be<span>
					</span>stated as follows:<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; line-height:normal; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; margin-right:96px; "><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; text-decoration:underline ;">Issue</span>:<span>
					</span>Does<span><span></span>
					</span>a<span><span></span>
					</span>genuine dispute of<span><span></span>
					</span>material<span><span></span>
					</span>fact<span><span></span>
					</span>exist<span><span></span>
					</span>on<span><span></span>
					</span>whether<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>evidence<span><span></span>
					</span>does, or<span>
					</span>does not,<span>
					</span>constitute<span>
					</span>“clear and convincing evidence”<span><span></span>
					</span>to<span><span></span>
					</span>hold the Respondent,<span><span></span>
					</span>Mr.<span>
					</span>Quevedo-Garcia,<span><span></span>
					</span>personally liable for<span>
					</span>OSHA<span>
					</span>violations and penalties<span><span></span>
					</span>that have been<span>
					</span>assessed against<span>
					</span>his<span><span></span>
					</span>closelyheld company<span><span></span>
					</span>(BB Frame LLC)<span><span></span>
					</span>by<span><span></span>
					</span>piercing<span><span></span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>corporate veil<span><span></span>
					</span>of that company?<span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "> </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:normal; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; margin-right:96px; "><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; text-decoration:underline ;">Decision</span>:<span><span></span>
					</span>The<span><span></span>
					</span>whole of the evidence on the cross-motions<span><span></span>
					</span>permits only one<span>
					</span>reasonable conclusion––that<span><span></span>
					</span>the evidence is clear and convincing that<span>
					</span>BB Frame LLC<span><span></span>
					</span>has not operated as an entity<span>
					</span>separate from<span>
					</span>Quevedo-Garcia<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span><span></span>
					</span>that he<span><span></span>
					</span>has<span>
					</span>abused<span>
					</span>the company’s<span><span></span>
					</span>corporate form to circumvent<span>
					</span>the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Act or OSH Act) and<span><span></span>
					</span>avoid<span><span></span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>Act’s<span>
					</span>expressed<span>
					</span>purpose<span><span></span>
					</span>and policy.<span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>The Secretary is<span>
					</span>therefore<span>
					</span>entitled to judgment as a matter of law that the<span><span></span>
					</span>company’s<span><span></span>
					</span>corporate form should be disregarded to<span><span></span>
					</span>hold<span><span></span>
					</span>Quevedo-Garcia<span><span></span>
					</span>personally<span>
					</span>liable<span><span></span>
					</span>for<span>
					</span>the<span><span></span>
					</span>company’s<span><span></span>
					</span>OSHA violations and penalties.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:normal; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">Accordingly, as set forth below,<span>
					</span>the Respondent’s motion for summary judgment is denied, and the<span><span></span>
					</span>Secretary’s<span>
					</span>cross-motion for summary judgment is granted.<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:8px; text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">F</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">ACTS</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; "><br/></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">(</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">Of</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">W</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">hich No Genuine Dispute</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">Has Been</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">Shown</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">)</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:0; orphans:0; ">The<span>
					</span>evidentiary<span>
					</span>material<span>
					</span>considered<span>
					</span>on the cross-motions<span><span></span>
					</span>for summary judgment<span><span></span>
					</span>reflects<span><span></span>
					</span>no<span>
					</span>genuine dispute<span>
					</span>as to the following<span>
					</span>facts:</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; margin-left:0cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Strong style_Strong " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Quevedo-Garcia and Related<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Strong style_Strong " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Closely-Held</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Strong style_Strong " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Companies</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Strong style_Strong " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:6px; text-indent:1.111cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">1.</span>The Respondent,<span>
				</span>Mr.<span>
				</span>Juan G. Quevedo Garcia (Quevedo-Garcia<span><span></span>
				</span>or Respondent),<span><span></span>
				</span>is an individual whose primary residence is<span>
				</span>[redacted], Palisades Park, New Jersey (Quevedo-Garcia<span><span></span>
				</span>Residence).<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>(Exs. 1<span><span></span>
				</span>& 4<span><span></span>
				</span>to<span>
				</span>Declaration of Alexander Kondo, Oct. 15, 2021<span><span></span>
				</span>[Kondo<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.])<span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:6px; text-indent:1.111cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">2.</span>Quevedo-Garcia was<span><span></span>
				</span>originally cited<span><span></span>
				</span>along with<span>
				</span>BB Frame LLC (BB Frame)<span>
				</span>for the<span>
				</span>violations and<span>
				</span>proposed<span>
				</span>penalties that<span>
				</span>remain<span>
				</span>here<span>
				</span>alleged<span>
				</span>against Quevedo-Garcia<span><span></span>
				</span>alone. As to BB Frame, the<span><span></span>
				</span>alleged<span>
				</span>violations and penalties<span><span></span>
				</span>subsequently became final orders against<span>
				</span>it,<span>
				</span>as detailed infra.</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; margin-left:0cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Strong style_Strong " style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">BB Frame LLC (BB Frame)</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:6px; text-indent:1.111cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">3.</span>BB Frame<span>
				</span>was organized as<span><span></span>
				</span>a<span>
				</span>New Jersey limited liability company<span>
				</span>on April 13,<span>
				</span>2017<span><span></span>
				</span>and<span><span></span>
				</span>was voluntarily dissolved about 42 months later, on November 19, 2020. (Exs. 9 & 10 to Kondo Decl.). QuevedoGarcia<span>
				</span>owned<span>
				</span>70%<span>
				</span>of BB Frame<span><span></span>
				</span>and<span>
				</span>was its only officer, serving as<span><span></span>
				</span>its<span>
				</span>president. Quevedo-Garcia’s<span>
				</span>sister,<span>
				</span>Magda QuevedoGarcia,<span>
				</span>was the only other member of BB Frame, owning<span>
				</span>30%.<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>(Exs. 7 & 8<span><span></span>
				</span>to<span><span></span>
				</span>Kondo<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.;<span><span></span>
				</span>Quevedo-Garcia<span><span></span>
				</span>Motion<span><span></span>
				</span>for Summary<span>
				</span>Judgment, Sept. 23, 2021 [QuevedoGarcia Mot.]<span><span></span>
				</span>¶ 10). BB Frame maintained its principal office and place of business at the Quevedo-Garcia<span><span></span>
				</span>Residence. (Ex. 4 to Kondo Decl.). </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:6px; text-indent:1.111cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">4.</span>BB Frame was a construction contractor engaged mainly in framing small to medium sized<span>
				</span>residential structures. (Exs.<span>
				</span>4 &<span>
				</span>31<span><span></span>
				</span>to<span><span></span>
				</span>Kondo<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.;<span>
				</span>Quevedo-Garcia Mot.<span><span></span>
				</span>¶¶ 1<span><span></span>
				</span>& 10).<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:6px; text-indent:1.111cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">5.</span><span><span></span>
				</span>Quevedo-Garcia was the only person authorized to hire, terminate, direct, train or discipline employees of BB Frame. (Ex. 31 to Kondo Decl.).<span><span></span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>Quevedo-Garcia was the only person to sign contracts, work orders, and service agreements with customers on behalf of BB Frame. (Ex. 4 to Kondo Decl.). Quevedo-Garcia was the only person authorized to withdraw money from the bank accounts of BB Frame. (Ex. 31 to Kondo<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.).<span><span></span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:6px; text-indent:1.111cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">6.</span>The Secretary’s ability to discover and present evidence relating to BB Frame’s formation, operations, and dissolution in support of his motion for summary judgment was substantially impeded by QuevedoGarcia’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory selfincrimination, which<span>
				</span>Quevedo-Garcia<span><span></span>
				</span>first formally asserted through counsel on July 16, 2021,<span><span></span>
				</span>and which he has thereafter maintained. (As described infra in the Discussion, the undersigned sustained QuevedoGarcia’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege in orders<span>
				</span>that denied<span><span></span>
				</span>discovery motions<span><span></span>
				</span>filed by the Secretary.)</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; margin-left:0cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Strong style_Strong " style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">Frame<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Strong style_Strong " style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">Q<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Strong style_Strong " style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">LLC (Frame</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Strong style_Strong " style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Q</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Strong style_Strong " style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">)</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">7.</span>Frame Q LLC (“Frame Q”) was organized as a New Jersey limited liability company<span>
				</span>on January 21,<span>
				</span>2013<span><span></span>
				</span>with<span>
				</span>Quevedo-Garcia<span>
				</span>as the sole owner and its<span><span></span>
				</span>president. (Exs. 2,<span><span></span>
				</span>3,<span><span></span>
				</span>31<span><span></span>
				</span>to<span><span></span>
				</span>Kondo<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.;<span><span></span>
				</span>Quevedo-Garcia<span><span></span>
				</span>Mot.<span><span></span>
				</span>¶ 1).<span><span></span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>Frame Q maintained its principal office and place of business at the Quevedo-Garcia Residence. (Exs. 2, 3, & 4 to Kondo Decl.).<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>Frame Q<span>
				</span>was<span>
				</span>voluntarily dissolved on April 7, 2019. (Exs. 5 & 6, Kondo).<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">8.</span>Frame Q was a construction contractor engaged mainly in framing small to medium sized<span>
				</span>residential structures. (Exs.<span><span></span>
				</span>4 &<span><span></span>
				</span>31<span><span></span>
				</span>to Kondo Decl.;<span>
				</span>Quevedo-Garcia Mot.<span><span></span>
				</span>¶ 1).<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>QuevedoGarcia was the only person authorized to hire, terminate, direct, train or discipline employees of Frame Q. (Ex. 31 to Kondo Decl.). Quevedo-Garcia was the only person to sign contracts, work orders, and service agreements with customers on behalf of Frame<span><span></span>
				</span>Q.<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>(Ex. 4 to Kondo Decl.). Quevedo-Garcia was the only person authorized to withdraw money from the bank accounts of Frame Q. (Ex. 31 to Kondo Decl.).</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; margin-left:0cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Strong style_Strong " style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">B</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Strong style_Strong " style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">M</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Strong style_Strong " style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Frame LLC (B</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Strong style_Strong " style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">M</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Strong style_Strong " style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Frame)</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">9.</span>BM Frame LLC (BM Frame)<span>
				</span>was organized as a New Jersey limited liability company<span>
				</span>on December 24,<span>
				</span>2019<span><span></span>
				</span>with two members––Quevedo-Garcia (75% owner) and Hector F. Roca (25% owner).<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>(Exs. 1, 11 & 12<span><span></span>
				</span>to Kondo Decl.). At the time of its<span>
				</span>formation, BM Frame<span><span></span>
				</span>sought and obtained authorization from the State of New Jersey to operate under the<span>
				</span>alternate name of “BB Frame.”<span><span></span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>(Exs. 12 & 13<span><span></span>
				</span>to Kondo Decl.).<span><span></span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">10.</span>BM Frame<span>
				</span>sought and obtained a<span><span></span>
				</span>license<span><span></span>
				</span>from<span><span></span>
				</span>the State of New Jersey as a home improvement contractor and is engaged<span><span></span>
				</span>in framing small to medium sized<span>
				</span>residential structures. (Exs. 12<span>
				</span>& 29<span><span></span>
				</span>to Kondo Decl.).<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>BM Frame maintains its principal office and place of business at the Quevedo-Garcia<span><span></span>
				</span>Residence.<span><span></span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>(Ex. 12<span><span></span>
				</span>to<span><span></span>
				</span>Kondo Decl.).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">11.</span>The Secretary’s ability to discover and present evidence relating to BM Frame’s<span>
				</span>formation and<span>
				</span>operations in support of his motion for summary judgment was substantially impeded by QuevedoGarcia’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege<span>
				</span>against compulsory selfincrimination.</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; margin-left:0cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Strong style_Strong " style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">Q Properties LLC</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Strong style_Strong " style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">,</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Strong style_Strong " style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Q Properties II LLC</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Strong style_Strong " style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">, and Q Nails Boutique LLC</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">12.</span>Q Properties LLC (Q Properties) is a limited liability company formed on February 5, 2018, with an address at the Quevedo-Garcia Residence. Quevedo-Garcia owns 60% and<span>
				</span>his sister<span>
				</span>Magda owns 40%. Q Properties is in the business of renting and selling real estate. (Exs.<span><span></span>
				</span>1, 3 &<span><span></span>
				</span>14 to Kondo Decl.).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">13.</span>A company named Q Properties II LLC (Q Properties II) has an<span>
				</span>address at<span>
				</span>the<span>
				</span>QuevedoGarcia<span><span></span>
				</span>Residence. (Kondo Decl. ¶ 16). There is no information in the record regarding the identity of the owners of Q Properties II, but<span>
				</span>in 2020,<span><span></span>
				</span>BM Frame issued checks totaling $18,000 payable to Q Properties II, as described infra.<span><span></span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">14.</span>A company named Q Nails Boutique LLC (Q Nails) is a limited liability company solely owned by QuevedoGarcia’s sister, Magda. In the spring of 2020, Quevedo-Garcia wrote four checks from BM Frame’s checking account totaling $11,600 for the apparent benefit of Q Nails, as described<span><span></span>
				</span>infra. (Ex. 36 to Kondo Decl.).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">15.</span>The Secretary’s ability to discover and present evidence relating to Q Properties, Q Properties II, and<span>
				</span>Q Nails in<span><span></span>
				</span>support of his motion for summary judgment was substantially impeded by Quevedo-Garcia’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege<span><span></span>
				</span>against compulsory selfincrimination.</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; margin-left:0cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Strong style_Strong " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Citations and Proposed Penalties<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Strong style_Strong " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Precipitating These</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Strong style_Strong " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; "><br/></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Strong style_Strong " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Consolidated Cases (Nos. 20-1029, et al).</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">16.</span>These five consolidated cases involve five separate citations that were originally issued to both BB Frame and to Quevedo-Garcia. The five citations<span>
				</span>alleged<span><span></span>
				</span>a total of 33 separate violations of<span>
				</span>construction industry workplace safety and health standards codified in 29 C.F.R. pt. 1926, that are alleged to have occurred over a period of about three months from December<span>
				</span>5,<span>
				</span>2019<span><span></span>
				</span>to<span>
				</span>March 2,<span><span></span>
				</span>2020. Of the 33 alleged violations, thirteen were classified as serious, twelve were classified as repeat, and eight were classified as willful. Among the alleged repeat and willful violations were the following:</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">a.</span>All<span><span></span>
				</span>five citations alleged either a willful or a repeat violation of fall protection in residential construction standard, codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.501(b)(13). </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">b.</span>All<span>
				</span>five citations alleged either a willful or<span>
				</span>a<span>
				</span>repeat violation of the<span>
				</span>eye and face protection standard codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.102(a)(1).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">c.</span>Three of the five citations alleged<span>
				</span>repeat violations of the head protection standard codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.100(a).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">d.</span>The<span><span></span>
				</span>citations<span>
				</span>collectively set forth<span><span></span>
				</span>nine<span><span></span>
				</span>alleged<span>
				</span>violations of the Stairways and Ladders standard codified at 29 C.F.R. pt. 1926,<span>
				</span>subpt. X. Three of those<span>
				</span>alleged violations<span><span></span>
				</span>were classified as repeat violations, and two others were classified as willful violations.</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">17.</span>The<span>
				</span>five<span>
				</span>citations proposed penalties totaling $2,004,225. The details of each of these five citations are described in following<span>
				</span>¶¶ 18–53.</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; margin-left:0cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Emphasis style_Emphasis " style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-weight:bold; ">Case 20-1029</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Emphasis style_Emphasis " style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-weight:bold; "><br/></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">(Inspection 1450621 Opened on Dec. 5, 2019)</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">18.</span>On December 5, 2019,<span>
				</span>a<span>
				</span>compliance safety and health officer<span><span></span>
				</span>(CO)<span>
				</span>from<span>
				</span>the area office of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey,<span>
				</span>opened<span><span></span>
				</span>OSHA<span><span></span>
				</span>inspection<span>
				</span>number<span>
				</span>1450621<span>
				</span>at<span><span></span>
				</span>a<span>
				</span>residential construction site<span>
				</span>in Cliffside Park, New Jersey at<span><span></span>
				</span>700 Palisades Avenue. BB Frame<span><span></span>
				</span>was engaged in construction activities at this worksite<span><span></span>
				</span>at this time.<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>BB Frame’s president,<span>
				</span>Quevedo-Garcia,<span><span></span>
				</span>was present at the worksite and spoke with<span><span></span>
				</span>the<span><span></span>
				</span>CO.<span><span></span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">19.</span>Quevedo-Garcia told the CO that the name of his business<span>
				</span>doing the construction work<span>
				</span>was Frame Q and that the employees at the site were Frame Q employees.<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>He said this even though Frame Q had been formally dissolved eight months earlier in April 2019. Two trucks present at the worksite<span>
				</span>displayed<span>
				</span>logos for Frame Q on the sides and rear of the<span>
				</span>trucks,<span><span></span>
				</span>and at the time of the inspection the registered owner of at least one of the<span><span></span>
				</span>trucks<span>
				</span>remained<span><span></span>
				</span>Frame Q. (Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.<span><span></span>
				</span>¶¶ 13–15).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">20.</span>About four months after the inspection, in April 2000, an attorney for QuevedoGarcia informed<span>
				</span>OSHA<span><span></span>
				</span>that Frame Q was out of business. (Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.). OSHA determined thereafter that BB Frame was the company performing the construction work at the site on December 5, 2019<span><span></span>
				</span>(although the evidence of record does not reveal how OSHA<span>
				</span>arrived at<span>
				</span>this determination).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">21.</span>On June 2, 2020,<span>
				</span>OSHA issued a Citation and Notification of Penalty<span>
				</span>to both the company, BB Frame, and to<span><span></span>
				</span>the individual, Quevedo-Garcia. The citation identified BB Frame<span>
				</span>to be doing business as “Frame Q LLC.”<span><span></span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>The citation alleged also that<span>
				</span>BB Frame<span>
				</span>was the successor company<span><span></span>
				</span>of<span>
				</span>Frame Q. The<span><span></span>
				</span>citation<span>
				</span>against BB Frame and Quevedo-Garcia<span>
				</span>alleged<span>
				</span>nine violations<span><span></span>
				</span>(four classified as serious, three as willful, and two as repeated).<span><span></span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>The citation<span>
				</span>proposed penalties totaling<span>
				</span>$520,860.<span><span></span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">22.</span>The citation alleged that the<span><span></span>
				</span>two<span><span></span>
				</span>“repeated”<span><span></span>
				</span>classifications<span><span></span>
				</span>were<span>
				</span>predicated on<span><span></span>
				</span>prior violations<span><span></span>
				</span>by Frame Q<span>
				</span>that<span>
				</span>had<span>
				</span>become final orders<span>
				</span>in 2017.<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">23.</span>One of the alleged willful violations<span>
				</span>cited the standard for<span>
				</span>fall protection<span><span></span>
				</span>in<span>
				</span>residential construction, which is codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.501(b)(13), alleging<span>
				</span>two<span>
				</span>separate instances<span>
				</span>that had<span>
				</span>occurred on December 5 and on December 6. </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">24.</span>BB Frame and Quevedo-Garcia timely contested the citation<span><span></span>
				</span>and proposed penalties,<span><span></span>
				</span>and the<span><span></span>
				</span>independent<span><span></span>
				</span>Occupational Safety and Health Review<span>
				</span>Commission (Commission)<span><span></span>
				</span>subsequently<span>
				</span>docketed the matter<span><span></span>
				</span>and<span><span></span>
				</span>assigned<span><span></span>
				</span>it docket number 20-1029.<span><span></span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>The Secretary<span>
				</span>then<span>
				</span>filed a complaint<span>
				</span>alleging that<span>
				</span>both BB Frame and Quevedo-Garcia “are employers within the meaning of section 3(5) of the Act”<span><span></span>
				</span>and realleging against both BB Frame and QuevedoGarcia<span>
				</span>all<span>
				</span>the<span>
				</span>violations<span><span></span>
				</span>and proposed penalties<span><span></span>
				</span>described in the citation. The complaint alleged further that Quevedo-Garcia “as owner and<span><span></span>
				</span>principal of both BB Frame<span><span></span>
				</span>LLC and Frame<span><span></span>
				</span>Q LLC, abused the corporate form in an<span><span></span>
				</span>attempt to evade liability for prior violations”<span>
				</span>of the<span>
				</span>OSH Act.<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>(Compl.<span><span></span>
				</span>¶ II<span><span></span>
				</span>& III, Aug. 27, 2020).<span><span></span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">25.</span>BB Frame and Quevedo-Garcia duly filed a<span><span></span>
				</span>joint<span><span></span>
				</span>answer<span><span></span>
				</span>that generally denied the allegations of the complaint. In the joint answer,<span><span></span>
				</span>BB Frame expressly denied that BB Frame was the successor company to Frame Q,<span><span></span>
				</span>and<span>
				</span>Quevedo-Garcia<span>
				</span>expressly<span>
				</span>denied any personal liability<span>
				</span>for<span>
				</span>the violations<span>
				</span>alleged.<span><span></span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>(Answer, Sept. 11, 2020). The joint answer<span><span></span>
				</span>interposed<span>
				</span>“separate defenses” as follows (among others not described): (a) “BB Frame is not a successor to Frame Q, but is separate and a distinct corporation,”, (b) “[Quevedo-Garcia]<span><span></span>
				</span>individually has no liability and no relationship of any<span><span></span>
				</span>kind, nor responsibility to”<span>
				</span>the<span>
				</span>Complainant, and (c) “Any relationship by and between<span>
				</span>[Respondents]<span><span></span>
				</span>and<span>
				</span>[Complainant]<span><span></span>
				</span>were corporate in nature<span><span></span>
				</span>and not personal.”</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">26.</span>BB Frame later withdrew its notice of contest<span><span></span>
				</span>respecting case number 20-1029<span><span></span>
				</span>(as well as its notices of contest in the<span>
				</span>four<span>
				</span>other<span>
				</span>cases with which it has been consolidated,<span><span></span>
				</span>as reflected in the caption). (Withdrawal, Apr. 5, 2021). After that withdrawal, the undersigned issued an order severing<span>
				</span>BB Frame from case 20-1029<span><span></span>
				</span>and<span>
				</span>further severing<span>
				</span>BB Frame<span><span></span>
				</span>from the four<span><span></span>
				</span>other<span>
				</span>cases with which case 20-1029 was consolidated. Upon<span>
				</span>BB Frame’s<span><span></span>
				</span>severance from case 201029,<span>
				</span>the claims against<span>
				</span>BB Frame were<span>
				</span>assigned to a<span>
				</span>newly opened<span>
				</span>Commission case<span><span></span>
				</span>with<span><span></span>
				</span>docket number 21-0635. </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">27.</span>As a result of BB Frame’s withdrawal of its notice of contest in case 20-1029, the violations and proposed penalties set forth in the citation issued to<span>
				</span>BB Frame<span><span></span>
				</span>on June 2,<span>
				</span>2020<span><span></span>
				</span>that arose out of inspection 1450621<span>
				</span>became a final order<span>
				</span>against BB Frame<span><span></span>
				</span>in case 210635<span>
				</span>on<span>
				</span>August 23, 2021.<span><span></span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">28.</span>After<span><span></span>
				</span>the severance of BB Frame from case 20-1029 (and the consolidated cases reflected in the caption)<span>
				</span>QuevedoGarcia<span><span></span>
				</span>remained<span><span></span>
				</span>the<span>
				</span>sole respondent.<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>The parties<span><span></span>
				</span>executed<span><span></span>
				</span>a formal stipulation in which<span>
				</span>Quevedo-Garcia<span>
				</span>expressly agreed to<span>
				</span>“waive[]<span><span></span>
				</span>any defense to the Citations and Notifications of Penalty other than the defense that<span>
				</span>[he]<span>
				</span>should not be held liable for the Citations and Notifications of Penalty in his individual capacity.” (Stipulation, May 22, 2021). </p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; margin-left:0cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">Case 20-1030</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; "><br/></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">(Inspection 1470364 Opened on Dec. 31, 2019)</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">29.</span>On December 31, 2019, a<span>
				</span>CO<span><span></span>
				</span>from<span>
				</span>OSHA’s<span>
				</span>area office in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey,<span>
				</span>opened<span><span></span>
				</span>OSHA inspection number 1470364<span>
				</span>at<span><span></span>
				</span>a residential construction site<span>
				</span>in Fort Lee, New Jersey at<span><span></span>
				</span>2400 6th Street. BB Frame was engaged in construction activities at this worksite at this time. BB Frame’s president, Quevedo-Garcia, was present at the worksite and spoke with the<span>
				</span>CO. The same trucks<span>
				</span>that displayed<span><span></span>
				</span>logos of Frame Q that were present<span>
				</span>at the<span>
				</span>Cliffside Park worksite on December 5, 2019, were present at the Fort Lee worksite. (Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.). </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">30.</span>On June 2, 2020,<span>
				</span>after having been informed by an attorney for Quevedo-Garcia that Frame Q was no longer in business,<span>
				</span>OSHA issued a Citation and Notification of Penalty to both the company, BB Frame, and to<span>
				</span>the individual, Mr.<span>
				</span>Quevedo-Garcia. The citation identified BB Frame to be doing business as “Frame Q LLC.” The citation alleged also that BB Frame was the successor company of Frame Q LLC. The citation<span>
				</span>alleged two serious, three willful, and one repeat violations and proposed penalties totaling $433,146. The citation alleged that the classification for the “repeat” violation was<span><span></span>
				</span>predicated on<span>
				</span>a<span>
				</span>prior violation by Frame Q<span>
				</span>that<span><span></span>
				</span>had<span><span></span>
				</span>become a final order<span>
				</span>in 2017.<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>One of the alleged willful violations cited the standard for fall protection in residential construction, codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.501(b)(13).<span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">31.</span>BB Frame and Quevedo-Garcia timely contested the citation and proposed penalties, and the Commission subsequently docketed the matter and assigned it docket number 20-1030. The<span>
				</span>Secretary<span><span></span>
				</span>then filed a complaint<span>
				</span>setting forth allegations<span>
				</span>substantially identical to those<span><span></span>
				</span>described supra in<span><span></span>
				</span>¶ 24<span><span></span>
				</span>in connection with case 20-1029. BB Frame and Quevedo-Garcia duly filed a joint answer that<span>
				</span>was identical to the joint answer filed in case 20-1029 described supra in ¶ 25.<span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">32.</span>BB Frame later withdrew its notice of contest respecting case number 20-1030<span><span></span>
				</span>and the other four consolidated cases reflected in the caption above. (Withdrawal, Apr. 5, 2021). After that withdrawal, the undersigned issued an order severing BB Frame from case 20-1030<span><span></span>
				</span>and<span>
				</span>from<span>
				</span>the other consolidated cases. Upon<span>
				</span>BB Frame’s<span><span></span>
				</span>severance from case 20-1030, the claims against BB Frame were assigned to a newly opened Commission case<span><span></span>
				</span>with<span><span></span>
				</span>docket number 21-0636. The violations and proposed penalties set forth in the citation issued to BB Frame on June 2,<span>
				</span>2020<span><span></span>
				</span>that arose out of inspection<span><span></span>
				</span>1470364<span>
				</span>became a final order<span>
				</span>against BB Frame<span>
				</span>in case 210636<span><span></span>
				</span>on August 23, 2021. </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">33.</span>After<span><span></span>
				</span>the severance of BB Frame from case 20-1030<span><span></span>
				</span>(and the consolidated cases reflected in the caption)<span>
				</span>QuevedoGarcia<span>
				</span>remained<span><span></span>
				</span>the sole respondent. The parties<span>
				</span>executed<span><span></span>
				</span>a formal stipulation in which Quevedo-Garcia<span><span></span>
				</span>waived all defenses other than the defense that he should not be held personally liable as described supra in ¶ 28.</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; margin-left:0cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">Case 20-1042</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; "><br/></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">(Inspection 1470345 Opened on Jan. 7, 2020)</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">34.</span>On January<span>
				</span>7, 2020, a<span>
				</span>CO from OSHA’s area office<span>
				</span>in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey,<span>
				</span>opened OSHA inspection number 1470345 of a residential construction site<span><span></span>
				</span>in Cliffside Park, New Jersey<span>
				</span>at 671 Grove Avenue.<span><span></span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>BB Frame<span>
				</span>was engaged in construction activities at this worksite.<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>BB Frame’s president, Quevedo-Garcia, was present at the worksite and spoke with the<span>
				</span>CO. The same trucks<span>
				</span>displaying logos of Frame Q that were present at the<span>
				</span>two<span>
				</span>BB Frame<span><span></span>
				</span>worksites<span>
				</span>in December 2019 as described above were present at the<span>
				</span>Grove Avenue worksite. (Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.). </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">35.</span>On June 2, 2020,<span><span></span>
				</span>after having been informed by an attorney for Quevedo-Garcia that Frame Q was no longer in business,<span><span></span>
				</span>OSHA issued a Citation and Notification of Penalty to both the company, BB Frame, and to the individual, Mr. Quevedo-Garcia. The citation identified BB Frame to be doing business as “Frame Q LLC.” The citation alleged one serious and four repeat violations and proposed penalties totaling $405,588. </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">36.</span>The citation alleged that the classifications for the three “repeat” violations were predicated on prior violations by Frame Q that had become final orders in 2013, 2014, 2017, 2018, and 2019. One of the<span>
				</span>alleged repeat violations<span><span></span>
				</span>cited the<span>
				</span>fall protection in residential construction standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1926.501(b)(13),<span>
				</span>and averred that<span>
				</span>Frame Q had violated that standard eight times before<span>
				</span>in<span><span></span>
				</span>separate violations that had become final orders<span>
				</span>between<span><span></span>
				</span>October 3,<span>
				</span>2013<span><span></span>
				</span>and<span><span></span>
				</span>February 6, 2019, and further that five of those prior violations<span><span></span>
				</span>of Frame Q<span><span></span>
				</span>had been classified as repeated and two had been classified as willful.</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">37.</span>BB Frame and Quevedo-Garcia timely contested the citation and proposed penalties, and the Commission subsequently docketed the matter and assigned it docket number 20-1042. The Secretary then filed a complaint setting forth<span>
				</span>allegations substantially identical to those described supra in ¶ 24<span><span></span>
				</span>in connection with case 20-1029. BB Frame and Quevedo-Garcia duly filed a joint answer that<span><span></span>
				</span>was identical to the joint answer filed in case 20-1029 described supra in ¶ 25.</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">38.</span>BB Frame later withdrew its notice of contest respecting case number 20-1042<span><span></span>
				</span>and the other four consolidated cases reflected in the caption above. (Withdrawal, Apr. 5, 2021). After that withdrawal, the undersigned issued an order severing BB Frame from case 20-1042 and<span>
				</span>from<span>
				</span>the other consolidated cases. Upon<span>
				</span>BB Frame’s<span><span></span>
				</span>severance from case 20-1042, the claims against BB Frame were assigned to a newly opened Commission case<span><span></span>
				</span>with<span><span></span>
				</span>docket number 21-0639. The violations and proposed penalties set forth in the citation issued to BB Frame on June 2,<span>
				</span>2020<span><span></span>
				</span>that arose out of inspection 1470356 became a final order<span>
				</span>against BB Frame<span><span></span>
				</span>in case 210639 on August 23, 2021. </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">39.</span>After the severance of BB Frame from case 20-1042 (and the consolidated cases reflected in the caption)<span>
				</span>QuevedoGarcia remained the sole respondent.<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>The parties executed a formal stipulation in which Quevedo-Garcia waived all defenses other than the defense that he should not be held personally liable as described supra in ¶ 28.<span>
				</span></p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; margin-left:0cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">Case 20-1031</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; "><br/></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">(Inspection 1464272 Opened on Feb. 20, 2020)</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">40.</span>On<span>
				</span>February 20, 2020, a<span>
				</span>CO from OSHA’s area office<span>
				</span>in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey,<span>
				</span>opened<span><span></span>
				</span>OSHA inspection number 1464272<span><span></span>
				</span>of a residential construction site<span>
				</span>in Palisades Park, New Jersey<span>
				</span>at<span>
				</span>20 West Central Boulevard. BB Frame was engaged in construction activities at this worksite. BB Frame’s president, Quevedo-Garcia, was present at the worksite and spoke with the CO. The same trucks<span>
				</span>that displayed<span><span></span>
				</span>logos of Frame Q that were present at the BB Frame’s worksites on December 5 & 31, 2019, and on January 7, 2020, as described above were present at this worksite on February 20, 2020. (Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">41.</span>On June 2, 2020,<span>
				</span>after having been informed by an attorney for Quevedo-Garcia that Frame Q was no longer in business,<span>
				</span>OSHA issued a Citation and Notification of Penalty to both the company, BB Frame, and to<span>
				</span>the individual, Mr. Quevedo-Garcia.<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>The citation identified BB Frame to be doing business as “Frame Q LLC.” The citation alleged<span>
				</span>one<span><span></span>
				</span>serious,<span>
				</span>one<span><span></span>
				</span>willful, and<span>
				</span>two<span><span></span>
				</span>repeat violations and proposed penalties totaling $274,892. </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">42.</span>The<span><span></span>
				</span>violation alleged to have been<span>
				</span>“willful”<span>
				</span>cited<span>
				</span>the fall protection standard for residential construction, which is codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.501(b)(13). That willful<span><span></span>
				</span>citation item alleged that<span>
				</span>the company Frame Q LLC had violated that standard seven<span><span></span>
				</span>times previously, with those violations having become final orders in<span><span></span>
				</span>2017, 2018, and 2019, and with all seven of those prior violations having been classified as either willful or repeat violations. </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">43.</span>The citation alleged that the classifications<span><span></span>
				</span>of<span>
				</span>the<span>
				</span>two<span>
				</span>“repeat” violations<span><span></span>
				</span>were<span><span></span>
				</span>predicated on prior violations<span><span></span>
				</span>by Frame Q that<span>
				</span>had become<span>
				</span>final orders<span><span></span>
				</span>in 2017, 2018, and 2019. </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">44.</span>BB Frame and Quevedo-Garcia timely contested the citation and proposed penalties, and the Commission subsequently docketed the matter and assigned it docket number 20-1031. The Secretary then filed a complaint setting forth<span>
				</span>allegations substantially identical to those described supra in ¶ 24<span><span></span>
				</span>in connection with case 20-1029. BB Frame and Quevedo-Garcia duly filed a joint answer<span>
				</span>that<span>
				</span>was identical to the joint answer filed in case 20-1029 described supra in ¶ 25.</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">45.</span>BB Frame later withdrew its notice of contest respecting case number 20-1031<span><span></span>
				</span>and the other four consolidated cases reflected in the caption above. (Withdrawal, Apr. 5, 2021). After that withdrawal, the undersigned issued an order severing BB Frame from case 20-1031<span><span></span>
				</span>and<span><span></span>
				</span>from<span><span></span>
				</span>the other consolidated cases. Upon<span>
				</span>BB Frame’s<span><span></span>
				</span>severance from case 20-1031, the claims against BB Frame were assigned to a newly opened Commission case<span><span></span>
				</span>with<span><span></span>
				</span>docket number 21-0637. The violations and proposed penalties set forth in the citation issued to BB Frame on June 2,<span>
				</span>2020<span><span></span>
				</span>that arose out of inspection 1464272<span><span></span>
				</span>became a final order<span>
				</span>against BB Frame<span><span></span>
				</span>in case 210637<span><span></span>
				</span>on August 23, 2021. </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">46.</span>After the severance of BB Frame from case 20-1031 (and the consolidated cases reflected in the caption)<span>
				</span>QuevedoGarcia remained the sole respondent. The parties executed a formal stipulation in which Quevedo-Garcia waived all defenses other than the defense that he should not be held personally liable as described supra in ¶ 28.</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; margin-left:0cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">Case 20-1032</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; "><br/></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">(Inspection 1466351 Opened on Feb. 28, 2020)</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">47.</span>On February 28, 2020, a<span>
				</span>CO from OSHA’s<span>
				</span>area office in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey,<span>
				</span>opened<span>
				</span>OSHA inspection number 1466351 of<span>
				</span>the<span><span></span>
				</span>same<span>
				</span>residential construction site<span><span></span>
				</span>that was the subject of inspection 146427 (case 20-1031) in Palisades Park, New Jersey at<span>
				</span>20 West Central Boulevard.<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>BB Frame was again engaged in construction activities at this worksite. Quevedo-Garcia<span><span></span>
				</span>was again present at this worksite. The same trucks<span>
				</span>displaying<span><span></span>
				</span>logos of Frame Q that were present at the<span>
				</span>same<span>
				</span>worksite on February 20, 2020, as described above were present at the<span><span></span>
				</span>worksite on February 28, 2020. (Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">48.</span>On June 2, 2020, after having been informed by an attorney for Quevedo-Garcia that Frame Q was no longer in business, OSHA issued a Citation and Notification of Penalty to both the company, BB Frame, and to the individual, Mr. Quevedo-Garcia. The citation identified BB Frame to be doing business as “Frame Q LLC.” The citation alleged<span>
				</span>five<span><span></span>
				</span>serious, one willful, and three<span><span></span>
				</span>repeat violations and proposed penalties totaling $369,739. </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">49.</span>The citation alleged that the classifications for the three<span><span></span>
				</span>“repeat” violations were predicated on prior violations of OSHA standards by Frame Q that had become final orders in 2017, 2018, and 2019. </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">50.</span>One of the alleged willful violations cited the standard for fall protection in residential construction, which is codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.501(b)(13), alleging two separate instances that had occurred on February 28 and March 2, 2020.<span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">51.</span>BB Frame and Quevedo-Garcia timely contested the citation and proposed penalties, and the<span><span></span>
				</span>Commission subsequently docketed the matter and assigned it docket number 20-1032. The Secretary then filed a complaint setting forth<span><span></span>
				</span>allegations substantially identical to those described supra in ¶ 24<span><span></span>
				</span>in connection with case 20-1029. BB Frame and Quevedo-Garcia duly filed a joint answer that was identical to the joint answer filed in case 20-1029 described supra in ¶ 25.</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">52.</span>BB Frame later withdrew its notice of contest respecting case number 20-1032<span><span></span>
				</span>and the other four consolidated cases reflected in the caption above. (Withdrawal, Apr. 5, 2021). After that withdrawal, the undersigned issued an order severing BB Frame from case 20-1032<span><span></span>
				</span>and<span>
				</span>from<span>
				</span>the other consolidated cases. Upon<span>
				</span>BB Frame’s<span><span></span>
				</span>severance from case 20-1032, the claims against BB Frame were assigned to a newly opened Commission case<span><span></span>
				</span>with<span><span></span>
				</span>docket number 21-0638. The violations and proposed penalties set forth in the citation issued to BB Frame on June 2,<span>
				</span>2020<span><span></span>
				</span>that arose out of inspection 1466351<span><span></span>
				</span>became a final order<span>
				</span>against BB Frame<span>
				</span>in case 210638<span><span></span>
				</span>on August 23, 2021. </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">53.</span>After the severance of BB Frame from case 20-1042 (and the consolidated cases reflected in the caption)<span>
				</span>QuevedoGarcia remained the sole respondent. The parties executed a formal stipulation in which Quevedo-Garcia waived all defenses other than the defense that he should not be held personally liable as described supra in ¶ 28.</p>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">Thirteen<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">Final Orders Against<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">Frame Q LLC</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; "><br/></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">Alleged<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">to</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Support “Repeat” and “Willful”</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">Classifications</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">Alleged<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">Here</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">54.</span>From February<span><span></span>
				</span>2013<span>
				</span>to July<span>
				</span>2018,<span>
				</span>officials<span><span></span>
				</span>from<span>
				</span>OSHA’s area office in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey,<span><span></span>
				</span>conducted thirteen inspections of Frame Q worksites.<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>CO Stuart<span>
				</span>Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>was the lead<span>
				</span>OSHA<span>
				</span>official<span>
				</span>on<span><span></span>
				</span>seven of those inspections, during which he<span><span></span>
				</span>directly<span>
				</span>explained<span>
				</span>OSHA safety requirements to Quevedo-Garcia. CO<span>
				</span>Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>specifically explained the<span>
				</span>requirement that<span>
				</span>workers<span>
				</span>utilize<span>
				</span>certain<span>
				</span>fall protection<span>
				</span>measures,<span>
				</span>and each time Quevedo-Garcia<span>
				</span>indicated that he understood<span><span></span>
				</span>this requirement. Nevertheless, on multiple occasions during<span>
				</span>those<span>
				</span>inspections, Quevedo-Garcia<span>
				</span>said<span><span></span>
				</span>that<span>
				</span>he intentionally does not require<span>
				</span>the<span>
				</span>employees to<span>
				</span>utilize compliant<span>
				</span>fall protection<span><span></span>
				</span>measures<span>
				</span>because he did not consider<span>
				</span>those measures<span>
				</span>to be worth the expense.<span><span></span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>(Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.<span><span></span>
				</span>¶ 7). </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">55.</span>Each of the thirteen inspections of Frame Q worksites resulted in<span>
				</span>the OSHA area office issuing to Frame Q<span>
				</span>a<span>
				</span>separate<span>
				</span>Citation<span><span></span>
				</span>and<span>
				</span>Notification of<span>
				</span>Penalty<span><span></span>
				</span>relating to<span>
				</span>each inspection. Twelve of those thirteen citations ultimately became<span>
				</span>final orders in which all the<span>
				</span>citations and<span>
				</span>proposed<span>
				</span>penalties<span><span></span>
				</span>became final orders as<span>
				</span>they had been originally<span>
				</span>issued. (One<span>
				</span>of the thirteen<span>
				</span>citations<span><span></span>
				</span>did<span>
				</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">not</span><span><span></span>
				</span>result in the complete affirmance of the citation<span><span></span>
				</span>items<span><span></span>
				</span>and proposed penalties as originally issued, but rather resulted reduced penalties and the reclassification of<span>
				</span>one<span><span></span>
				</span>violation pursuant to<span>
				</span>the terms of<span>
				</span>a formal settlement agreement, as described infra in ¶ 57.) Altogether, the<span><span></span>
				</span>thirteen citations established<span>
				</span>40<span><span></span>
				</span>violations<span>
				</span>of certain construction industry workplace safety and health standards codified in 29 C.F.R. pt. 1926. Of those<span>
				</span>40<span><span></span>
				</span>violations,<span>
				</span>twenty-one<span><span></span>
				</span>were classified as serious, seventeen were classified as repeated, and two were classified as willful.<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>Those<span>
				</span>40<span><span></span>
				</span>violations<span>
				</span>included<span><span></span>
				</span>the following:</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">a.</span>Eight violations of the fall protection in residential construction standard codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.501(b)(13), five of which were repeat violations and two of which were willful violations.</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">b.</span>Twelve<span>
				</span>violations of<span><span></span>
				</span>personal protective equipment standards pertaining to eye, face, and head protection. Nine of those<span><span></span>
				</span>twelve violations were repeat violations.</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">c.</span>Ten violations<span>
				</span>of the<span>
				</span>“Stairways and<span>
				</span>Ladders”<span><span></span>
				</span>standard codified at 29 C.F.R. pt. 1926,<span>
				</span>subpt. X.</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">d.</span>Nine<span><span></span>
				</span>violations of the<span>
				</span>“Scaffolds”<span><span></span>
				</span>standard codified at 29 C.F.R. pt. 1926,<span>
				</span>subpt. L.<span><span></span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>Two of those<span>
				</span>nine violations<span>
				</span>were repeat violations.</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">56.</span>The penalties<span><span></span>
				</span>arising out of the thirteen citations<span>
				</span>totaled $777,609.<span><span></span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>Of that amount,<span>
				</span>Frame Q<span>
				</span>has<span>
				</span>paid<span><span></span>
				</span>$4,800<span>
				</span>that<span>
				</span>had been<span><span></span>
				</span>assessed in connection with an inspection conducted in August 2013<span><span></span>
				</span>as described infra at ¶ 58. Frame Q did not pay any of the<span>
				</span>remaining sum of $772,809 either before or after its voluntary dissolution on<span>
				</span>April 7, 2019. (Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.). A summary of those<span>
				</span>thirteen prior inspections and resulting citations issued to Frame Q between February 2013 and January 2019<span><span></span>
				</span>are set forth<span>
				</span>infra<span><span></span>
				</span>in<span><span></span>
				</span>¶¶ 57–69.</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">57.</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">Inspection 897001</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;"><span><span></span>
					</span>of Frame Q Worksite</span>. On February 26, 2013, a CO from OSHA’s area office in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, opened OSHA inspection number 897001 of a residential construction site in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey at 31 New Street, where<span><span></span>
				</span>Frame Q was<span>
				</span>building a porch on an existing residential structure. On June 19, 2013, OSHA issued a citation and notification of penalty that alleged three violations. Frame Q contested the citation and proposed penalties, and the Commission’s Executive Secretary docketed the matter and assigned it docket number 131603.<span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref1" href="#ftn1">1</a></span> Frame Q entered into a formal settlement agreement on February 21, 2014, that became a final order of the Commission on April 28, 2014, wherein Frame Q accepted three serious violations and<span>
				</span>associated<span>
				</span>penalties<span>
				</span>that<span>
				</span>totaled<span><span></span>
				</span>$4,180<span><span></span>
				</span>that were<span><span></span>
				</span>payable<span><span></span>
				</span>in ten equal monthly installments. Frame Q<span>
				</span>did<span><span></span>
				</span>not pay the agreed<span>
				</span>penalties. (Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.).<span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span></span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">58.</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">Inspection<span>
					</span></span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">927166</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;"><span><span></span>
					</span>of Frame Q Worksite</span>. On August 5, 2013, a CO from OSHA’s area office in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, opened OSHA inspection number 927166 of a residential construction site in Paramus, New Jersey at 224 Diane Place. Frame Q was engaged in construction activities at this worksite. On August 28, 2013, OSHA issued a citation and notification of penalty to Frame<span>
				</span>Q that alleged two serious violations<span><span></span>
				</span>and proposed penalties totaling $4,800.<span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref2" href="#ftn2">2</a></span> Frame Q did not contest the citation and paid the proposed penalty<span><span></span>
				</span>of $4,800, which is<span>
				</span>the only penalty for any established violations of OSHA standards that Frame Q has paid. (Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.).<span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">59.</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">Inspection 955187</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;"><span><span></span>
					</span>of Frame Q Worksite</span>. On January 16, 2014, a CO from OSHA’s area office in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, opened OSHA inspection number<span>
				</span>955187<span><span></span>
				</span>of a residential construction site in Teaneck, New Jersey at 368 Edgewood Avenue. Frame Q was engaged in construction activities at this worksite. On July 11, 2014, OSHA issued a citation and notification of penalty to Frame Q that alleged one repeat and<span>
				</span>three<span><span></span>
				</span>serious violations and proposed penalties totaling $23,320. Frame Q did not contest the citation<span><span></span>
				</span>or proposed penalties<span><span></span>
				</span>and<span>
				</span>consequently<span>
				</span>they<span><span></span>
				</span>became a final order<span><span></span>
				</span>pursuant to section 10(b) of the Act. Frame Q has not paid the imposed penalties. (Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.; footnote<span>
				</span>2, supra, [as to judicial notice of OSHA website information]<span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> </span>).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">60.</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">Inspection<span>
					</span></span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">983958</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;"><span><span></span>
					</span></span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">of Frame Q Worksite</span>. On January 24, 2014, a CO from OSHA’s area office in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, opened<span><span></span>
				</span>OSHA inspection number 983958<span>
				</span>at the same<span>
				</span>residential construction site in Teaneck, New Jersey at 368 Edgewood Avenue<span><span></span>
				</span>that had been the subject of inspection 955187, which is<span><span></span>
				</span>described in the preceding paragraph. Frame Q was engaged in construction activities at this worksite. On July 16, 2014, OSHA issued a citation and notification of penalty to Frame Q that alleged one repeat and two serious violations<span>
				</span>and proposed penalties totaling $20,680. Frame Q did not contest the citation and consequently it became a final order pursuant to section 10(b) of the Act. Frame Q has not paid the imposed penalties. (Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.; footnote<span>
				</span>2, supra, [as to judicial notice of OSHA website information]<span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> </span>).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">61.</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">Inspection<span>
					</span></span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">979064</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;"><span><span></span>
					</span></span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">of Frame Q Worksite</span>. On<span>
				</span>March 3, 2014, a CO from OSHA’s area office in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, opened OSHA inspection number<span><span></span>
				</span>979064<span><span></span>
				</span>of a residential construction site in<span><span></span>
				</span>Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey at<span><span></span>
				</span>18 Skyline Drive. Frame Q was engaged in construction activities at this worksite. On June 17, 2014, OSHA issued a citation and notification of penalty to Frame Q that alleged one repeat and<span>
				</span>four<span><span></span>
				</span>serious violations and proposed penalties totaling $14,520. Frame Q did not contest the citation and consequently it became a final order<span><span></span>
				</span>by operation of law on July 23, 2014,<span>
				</span>pursuant to section 10(a) of the Act. By letter dated November<span>
				</span>23,<span>
				</span>2016, Frame Q sought to challenge this final order by filing with the Commission a notice of contest.<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>The Commission’s Executive Secretary treated this to be a “late notice of contest” and docketed the matter, assigning it case number 16-2015. By decision dated September 22, 2017, a Commission Judge issued an order dismissing Frame Q’s late notice of contest. The order of dismissal became a final order of the Commission on October 25, 2017. Frame Q has not paid the imposed penalties. (Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.; footnote<span>
				</span>1, supra<span><span></span>
				</span>[as to judicial notice of Commission<span>
				</span>case<span>
				</span>files]<span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> </span>).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">62.</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">Inspection 1052385</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;"><span><span></span>
					</span></span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">of Frame Q Worksite</span>. On January 23, 2015, a CO from OSHA’s area office in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, opened OSHA inspection number 1052385 of a residential construction site in Paramus, New Jersey on Sherwood Drive. Frame Q was engaged in construction activities at this worksite. On April 28, 2015, OSHA issued a citation and notification of penalty to Frame Q that alleged two serious violations and proposed penalties totaling $4,400. By letter dated November 23, 2016, Frame Q sought to challenge the citation and proposed penalties by filing a<span><span></span>
				</span>notice of contest. The Commission’s Executive Secretary treated this to be a “late notice of contest” and<span><span></span>
				</span>docketed<span>
				</span>the matter, assigning it case<span><span></span>
				</span>number 16-2011. Frame Q contended in part that it had never been served with the citation. After conducting an evidentiary hearing on September 18, 2017,<span>
				</span>a Commission Judge issued a<span>
				</span>decision and<span>
				</span>order<span><span></span>
				</span>on February 5, 2018,<span><span></span>
				</span>determining<span><span></span>
				</span>in part that (a)<span><span></span>
				</span>the citation had become a final order by operation of law under section 10(a) of the Act,<span>
				</span>(b) Frame Q had failed to demonstrate that it was entitled to relief from this final order, and (c) dismissing Frame Q’s notice of contest. The order of dismissal became a final order of the Commission on<span>
				</span>March 8, 2018.<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>Frame Q has not paid the imposed penalties.<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>(Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.; footnote<span>
				</span>1, supra<span><span></span>
				</span>[as to judicial notice of Commission files]<span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> </span>).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">63.</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">Inspection 10</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">42114</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;"><span><span></span>
					</span></span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">of Frame Q Worksite</span>. On February 24, 2015, a CO from OSHA’s area office in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, opened OSHA inspection number 1042114 of a residential construction site in Mahwah, New Jersey at 27 Maple Avenue. Frame Q was engaged in construction activities at this worksite. On<span>
				</span>June 22, 2015, OSHA issued a citation and notification of penalty to Frame Q<span><span></span>
				</span>that<span><span></span>
				</span>alleged<span><span></span>
				</span>one serious, one willful, and one repeat<span><span></span>
				</span>violation,<span>
				</span>and proposed penalties totaling $20,680. By letter dated November 23, 2016, Frame Q sought to challenge the citation and proposed penalties by filing a notice of contest. The Commission’s Executive Secretary treated this to be a “late notice of contest” and docketed the matter, assigning it case number 16-2010. Frame Q contended in part that it had never been served with the citation. After conducting an evidentiary hearing on September 18, 2017, a Commission Judge issued a decision and order on February 5, 2018, determining in part that (a) the citation had become a final order by operation of law under section 10(a) of the Act, (b) Frame Q had failed to demonstrate that it was entitled to relief from this final order, and (c) dismissing Frame Q’s notice of contest. The order of dismissal became a final order of the Commission on March 8, 2018. Frame Q has not paid the imposed penalties. (Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.; footnote<span>
				</span>1, supra<span><span></span>
				</span>[as to judicial notice of Commission files]).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">64.</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">Inspection 10</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">71019</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;"><span><span></span>
					</span></span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">of Frame Q Worksite</span>. On April 22, 2015, a CO from OSHA’s area office in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, opened OSHA inspection number 1071019 of a residential construction site in Fort Lee, New Jersey on Abbott Boulevard. Frame Q was engaged in construction activities at this worksite. On October 5, 2015, OSHA issued a citation and notification of penalty to Frame Q that alleged one serious and two repeat violations, and that<span><span></span>
				</span>proposed penalties totaling $13,640. By letter dated November 23, 2016, Frame Q sought to challenge the citation and proposed penalties by filing a notice of contest. The Commission’s Executive Secretary treated this to be a “late notice of contest” and docketed the matter, assigning it case number 16-2012. Frame Q contended in part that it had never been served with the citation. After conducting an evidentiary hearing on September 18, 2017, a Commission Judge issued a decision and order on February 5, 2018, determining in part that (a) the citation had become a final order by operation of law under section 10(a) of the Act, (b) Frame Q had failed to demonstrate that it was entitled to relief from this final order, and (c) dismissing Frame Q’s notice of contest. The order of dismissal became a final order of the Commission on March 8, 2018. Frame Q has not paid the imposed penalties. (Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.; footnote<span>
				</span>1, supra<span><span></span>
				</span>[as to judicial notice of Commission files]<span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> </span>).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">65.</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">Inspection 10</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">76348</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;"><span><span></span>
					</span></span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">of Frame Q Worksite</span>. On June 8, 2015, a CO from OSHA’s area office in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, opened OSHA inspection number 1076348 of a residential construction site in Palisades Park, New Jersey at 462 Second Street. Frame Q was engaged in construction activities at this worksite. On August 10, 2015, OSHA issued a citation and notification of penalty to Frame Q<span>
				</span>that<span>
				</span>alleged<span><span></span>
				</span>one willful and<span>
				</span>two<span><span></span>
				</span>repeat violations,<span><span></span>
				</span>and<span>
				</span>that<span>
				</span>proposed penalties totaling $25,080. By letter dated November 23, 2016, Frame Q sought to challenge the citation and proposed penalties by filing a notice of contest. The Commission’s Executive Secretary treated this to be a “late notice of contest” and docketed the matter, assigning it case number 16-2013. Frame Q contended in part that it had never been served with the citation. After conducting an evidentiary hearing on September 18, 2017, a Commission Judge issued a decision and order on February 5, 2018, determining in part that (a) the citation had become a final order by operation of law under section 10(a) of the Act, (b) Frame Q had failed to demonstrate that it was entitled to relief from this final order, and (c) dismissing Frame Q’s notice of contest. The order of dismissal became a final order of the Commission on March 8, 2018. Frame Q has not paid the imposed penalties. (Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.; footnote<span>
				</span>1, supra<span><span></span>
				</span>[as to judicial notice of Commission files]).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">66.</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">Inspection 1</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">113701</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;"><span><span></span>
					</span></span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">of Frame Q Worksite</span>. On December 22, 2015, a CO from OSHA’s area office in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, opened OSHA inspection number 1113701 of a residential construction site in Fort Lee, New Jersey at 1010/1006 Morningside Lane. Frame Q was engaged in construction activities at this worksite. On February 16, 2016, OSHA issued a citation and notification of penalty to Frame Q that alleged two repeat violations and proposed penalties totaling $18,920. By letter dated November 23, 2016, Frame Q sought to challenge the citation and proposed penalties by filing a notice of contest. The Commission’s Executive Secretary treated this to be a “late notice of contest” and docketed the matter, assigning it case number 16-2014. Frame Q contended in part that it had never been served with the citation. After conducting an evidentiary hearing on September 18, 2017, a Commission Judge issued a decision and order on February 5, 2018, determining in part that (a) the citation had become a final order by operation of law under section 10(a) of the Act, (b) Frame Q had failed to demonstrate that it was entitled to relief from this final order, and (c) dismissing Frame Q’s notice of contest. The order of dismissal became a final order of the Commission on March 8, 2018. Frame Q has not paid the imposed penalties. (Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.; footnote<span>
				</span>1, supra<span><span></span>
				</span>[as to judicial notice of Commission files]<span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> </span>).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">67.</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">Inspection<span>
					</span></span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">1149505</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;"><span><span></span>
					</span></span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">of Frame Q Worksite</span>. On April 23, 2016, a CO from OSHA’s area office in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, opened OSHA inspection number 1149505 of a residential construction site in Palisades Park, New Jersey at 119 Abbot Avenue.<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>Frame Q was engaged in construction activities at this worksite. On September 28, 2016, OSHA issued a citation and notification of penalty that alleged two repeat violations<span><span></span>
				</span>and<span>
				</span>proposed<span><span></span>
				</span>penalties totaling $222,697. Frame Q<span><span></span>
				</span>timely<span><span></span>
				</span>contested the citation and proposed penalties, and the Commission’s Executive Secretary docketed the matter and assigned it docket number 161737. Frame Q<span>
				</span>formally withdrew its notice of contest by notice dated February 5, 2018, and a Commission Judge approved the withdrawal by order dated February 20, 2018. Consequently, the citation and proposed penalties became a final order on<span>
				</span>March 22, 2018. Frame Q<span>
				</span>has not paid the imposed penalties. (Ex. 16<span><span></span>
				</span>to<span><span></span>
				</span>Kondo Decl.;<span>
				</span>Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.; footnote<span>
				</span>1<span><span></span>
				</span>supra [as to<span>
				</span>judicial notice of<span>
				</span>Commission files]<span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> </span>).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">68.</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">Inspection<span>
					</span></span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">126</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">4265</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;"><span><span></span>
					</span></span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">of Frame Q Worksite</span>. On April 3, 2017, a CO from OSHA’s area office in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, opened OSHA inspection number<span><span></span>
				</span>1264265<span>
				</span>of a residential construction site in<span>
				</span>Fort Lee, New Jersey at<span><span></span>
				</span>2475 Sixth Street.<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>Frame Q was engaged in construction activities at this worksite. On September 25, 2017, OSHA issued a citation and notification of penalty that alleged<span>
				</span>two serious and<span>
				</span>two repeat violations<span><span></span>
				</span>and<span>
				</span>proposing penalties totaling $153,241. Frame Q<span>
				</span>timely<span>
				</span>contested the citation and proposed penalties, and the Commission’s Executive Secretary docketed the matter and assigned it docket number 172030. After Frame Q failed to timely file an answer to the Secretary’s complaint, a<span><span></span>
				</span>Commission Judge issued an order to show cause to Frame Q directing<span>
				</span>Frame Q<span><span></span>
				</span>to show cause why it should not be held in default. Frame Q did not formally respond to the order to show cause. However,<span><span></span>
				</span>Frame Q’s attorney informally advised the Commission on June 20,<span>
				</span>2018<span><span></span>
				</span>that Frame Q had “closed its business” and that<span><span></span>
				</span>Frame Q would not file any<span>
				</span>formal response to the order to show cause. The Commission Judge thereafter filed an order of default affirming the citation and proposed penalties. The order of<span><span></span>
				</span>default became a final order on August 8, 2018. Frame Q<span>
				</span>has not paid the imposed penalties. (Ex. 18<span><span></span>
				</span>to<span><span></span>
				</span>Kondo Decl.;<span>
				</span>Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.; footnote<span>
				</span>1<span><span></span>
				</span>supra [as to<span>
				</span>judicial notice of<span>
				</span>Commission files]<span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> </span>).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">69.</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">Inspection<span>
					</span></span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">1329463</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;"><span><span></span>
					</span></span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; text-decoration:underline ;">of Frame Q Worksite</span>. On July 11, 2018, a CO from OSHA’s area office in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, opened OSHA inspection number 1329463 of a residential construction site in Palisades Park, New Jersey at 417 Third Street. Frame Q was engaged in construction activities at this worksite. On January 4, 2019, OSHA issued a citation and notification of penalty to Frame Q that alleged one serious and three repeat violations and proposed penalties totaling $261,451. Frame Q did not contest the citation and consequently it became a final order pursuant to section 10(b) of the Act. Frame Q has not paid the imposed penalties. (Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.; footnote<span>
				</span>2, supra<span><span></span>
				</span>[as to judicial notice of OSHA website information]<span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> </span>).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">70.</span>The penalties imposed on Frame Q<span>
				</span>in<span>
				</span>the<span>
				</span>thirteen inspections<span>
				</span>from 2013 to 2018<span>
				</span>totaled<span><span></span>
				</span>$777,609. Of that sum, Frame Q<span><span></span>
				</span>paid only $4,800. (Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.; footnotes<span>
				</span>1<span><span></span>
				</span>and<span>
				</span>2, supra).<span><span></span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">71.</span>The last day that Frame Q made payroll disbursements to employees was on June 1, 2018, when it issued payroll checks to seven individuals. (Ex. 24 to Kondo Decl.). Frame Q made no payroll disbursements after June 1, 2018. (Ex. 24 to Kondo Decl.). OSHA’s last inspection of a Frame Q worksite was opened about six weeks later, on July 11, 2018, which resulted in the issuance of a citation to Frame Q on January 4,<span>
				</span>2019<span><span></span>
				</span>that Frame Q did not contest. </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">72.</span>Quevedo-Garcia caused Frame Q to be dissolved on April 7, 2019, which was about ten weeks after the<span><span></span>
				</span>last<span>
				</span>of the<span>
				</span>described<span><span></span>
				</span>thirteen<span>
				</span>citations<span><span></span>
				</span>issued to Frame Q became a final order.</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">73.</span>In its federal tax return for tax year 2018, which was dated four days after Frame Q was formally dissolved<span><span></span>
				</span>in April 2019, Frame Q reported gross receipts of $528,895 and<span>
				</span>total income<span><span></span>
				</span>of $366,528. After deductions<span>
				</span>from the total income figure<span>
				</span>for expenses such as compensation of officers and salaries and wages,<span>
				</span>Frame Q<span><span></span>
				</span>reported a positive business income of $14,464 for tax year 2018. The<span><span></span>
				</span>2018<span><span></span>
				</span>tax return reflects a balance sheet liability for<span>
				</span>“accounts payable”<span><span></span>
				</span>at the beginning of the tax year of $303,318<span><span></span>
				</span>but by the end of the year that<span>
				</span>balance sheet liability<span>
				</span>had been reduced by<span><span></span>
				</span>44%<span>
				</span>to $170,807.<span><span></span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>(Ex. 2 to Kondo Decl.). There is no evidence regarding the<span>
				</span>components<span><span></span>
				</span>of this balance sheet liability for accounts payable,<span><span></span>
				</span>or the identity of the creditors. The Secretary’s ability to discover and present evidence relating to the<span>
				</span>2018<span>
				</span>balance sheet liabilities<span><span></span>
				</span>for accounts payable in support of his motion for summary judgment was substantially impeded by QuevedoGarcia’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory selfincrimination.</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">74.</span>On February 6, 2019, the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey<span>
				</span>(USAO-NJ)<span>
				</span>brought a<span><span></span>
				</span>civil<span><span></span>
				</span>action<span>
				</span>in federal district court<span>
				</span>against Frame Q to collect $473,178 in unpaid OSHA penalties relating to eight<span><span></span>
				</span>of the citations issued to<span><span></span>
				</span>Frame Q<span><span></span>
				</span>(the<span>
				</span>six<span>
				</span>late<span>
				</span>contests<span><span></span>
				</span>plus<span>
				</span>the citations that resulted from<span>
				</span>inspections<span><span></span>
				</span>1149505 and 1264265).<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>The<span>
				</span>civil<span>
				</span>action also sought $205,325.01 in interest and fees.<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">75.</span>On April 7, 2019, two months after the collection action was filed, Quevedo-Garcia caused Frame Q to be voluntary dissolved. About four weeks later, on May 3, 2019, the<span>
				</span>USAONJ<span><span></span>
				</span>filed a voluntary dismissal of its collection action<span><span></span>
				</span>after concluding that Frame Q<span>
				</span>could not be<span>
				</span>successfully<span>
				</span>served<span><span></span>
				</span>with the summons and complaint because it had been dissolved.<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>(Jordan Anger<span>
				</span>Decl.).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">76.</span>According to interrogatory responses that QuevedoGarcia verified, Frame Q’s only assets upon its dissolution in April 2019 were three trucks that were to be “transferred with loans”<span><span></span>
				</span>to BB Frame. (Ex. 4 to Kondo Decl.). At least one of those<span><span></span>
				</span>vehicles remained officially registered to Frame Q during the underlying inspections<span>
				</span>of BB Frame’s worksites involved<span>
				</span>here. (Ex. B to<span>
				</span>Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">77.</span>In Frame Q’s certificate of dissolution filed on April 7, 2019,<span><span></span>
				</span>Quevedo-Garcia represented that “[a]ll<span><span></span>
				</span>assets have been discarded and have been applied to creditors or distributed to members.” (Ex. 6 to Kondo Decl.).<span><span></span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>There is no evidence respecting<span><span></span>
				</span>the extent to which the liquidation of Frame Q’s assets reduced the balance sheet liability for accounts payable that was reported at the end of tax year 2018. The Secretary’s ability to discover and present evidence on this matter of fact in support of his motion for summary judgment was substantially impeded by Quevedo-Garcia’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege.<span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">78.</span>Quevedo-Garcia caused Frame Q to be dissolved at least in part to avoid collection of unpaid penalties of $772,809 that resulted from<span>
				</span>OSHA<span>
				</span>inspections of Frame Q worksites. (Quevedo-Garcia Mot.<span><span></span>
				</span>¶¶ 6–9).<span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">79.</span>Prior to<span>
				</span>Frame Q’s<span><span></span>
				</span>formal<span>
				</span>dissolution April 2019,<span>
				</span>Quevedo-Garcia<span><span></span>
				</span>discontinued<span>
				</span>framing operations through Frame Q<span>
				</span>and<span>
				</span>transitioned<span>
				</span>all of<span>
				</span>Frame Q’s framing operations to BB Frame. Frame Q’s employees began working for<span>
				</span>BB Frame<span><span></span>
				</span>doing<span>
				</span>the same type of construction work and in the same locale<span>
				</span>as Frame Q. (Exs. 4,<span>
				</span>24, 25,<span>
				</span>31<span><span></span>
				</span>to Kondo Decl.).<span><span></span>
				</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">B</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">B</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Frame LLC</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(BB Frame)</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">80.</span>On April 13, 2017,<span>
				</span>Quevedo-Garcia caused BB Frame to be formed;<span><span></span>
				</span>its certificate of formation did not identify any member(s) of the company. (Ex. 9 to Kondo Decl.;<span>
				</span>Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl. ¶ 10). BB Frame was formed<span>
				</span>ten days after<span>
				</span>OSHA<span>
				</span>had<span>
				</span>opened<span>
				</span>inspection<span><span></span>
				</span>number<span>
				</span>1264265, which was<span>
				</span>the twelfth of the thirteen inspections of Frame Q<span><span></span>
				</span>worksites<span><span></span>
				</span>described<span>
				</span>supra in<span><span></span>
				</span>¶ 68.) On September 4, 2018, about 17 months after BB Frame had been formed, QuevedoGarcia filed an amendment to BB Frame’s certificate of formation that identified himself and his sister, Magda Quevedo-Garcia, as BB Frame’s only members. (Ex. 22, Kondo Decl.).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">81.</span>In mid-2018, Quevedo-Garcia transferred $20,000 from Frame Q to BB Frame by<span>
				</span>issuing three<span>
				</span>checks<span><span></span>
				</span>from Frame Q’s bank account<span><span></span>
				</span>(dated respectively on June 20, July 21, and August 2, 2018). He signed these checks as the agent of Frame<span>
				</span>Q<span><span></span>
				</span>and<span>
				</span>he then endorsed on behalf of BB Frame for deposit into BB Frame’s<span>
				</span>bank<span>
				</span>account. (Exs. 21 & 31 to Kondo Decl.). </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">82.</span>All seven individuals who had received a payroll disbursement from Frame Q on June 1, 2018 (which was Frame Q’s final payroll disbursement before it was formally dissolved about ten months later) began to receive payroll disbursements from BB Frame starting on June 8, 2018. (Exs. 24 & 25 to Kondo Decl.). Four of those seven individuals continued to receive payroll disbursements from BB Frame through December 20, 2019, which was the date<span><span></span>
				</span>of<span>
				</span>BB Frame’s<span><span></span>
				</span>final<span>
				</span>payroll disbursements. (Payroll disbursements from BB Frame to the other three individuals ended respectively on 6/22/18, 3/29/2019 and 6/28/2019, apparently because each had left BB Frame’s employment<span><span></span>
				</span>on or before<span>
				</span>those respective dates.) (Ex. 25 to Kondo Decl.). The day of<span>
				</span>BB Frame’s<span>
				</span>final<span><span></span>
				</span>payroll disbursements<span><span></span>
				</span>(December 20, 2019)<span><span></span>
				</span>was fifteen days after OSHA<span><span></span>
				</span>had<span><span></span>
				</span>opened the first of the five inspections<span><span></span>
				</span>of BB Frame worksites<span><span></span>
				</span>that precipitated these consolidated matters. (Ex. 25 to Kondo Decl.).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">83.</span>On<span>
				</span>March 12, 2019,<span>
				</span>less than four weeks<span>
				</span>before Quevedo-Garcia<span><span></span>
				</span>would<span><span></span>
				</span>cause<span><span></span>
				</span>Frame Q<span><span></span>
				</span>to be voluntarily dissolved,<span>
				</span>Quevedo-Garcia caused<span>
				</span>BB Frame<span>
				</span>to<span>
				</span>apply<span><span></span>
				</span>for a home improvement contractor license with the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General, Division of Consumer Affairs (DCA).<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>(Ex. 8<span><span></span>
				</span>to Kondo Decl.). About eleven weeks later, on May 29, 2019, DCA issued<span>
				</span>to<span>
				</span>BB Frame a New Jersey home improvement contractor license.<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>(Ex. 23<span><span></span>
				</span>to Kondo Decl.).<span><span></span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">84.</span>Prior to the OSHA inspections that precipitated these consolidated matters, BB Frame used its business checking account for BB Frame operations, including<span>
				</span>issuing<span>
				</span>payroll<span><span></span>
				</span>checks. Beginning November 25, 2019, that checking account<span><span></span>
				</span>had a consistently negative balance,<span><span></span>
				</span>causing the<span>
				</span>bank<span>
				</span>to<span>
				</span>force<span>
				</span>the account<span><span></span>
				</span>closed on March 25, 2020. (Ex. 28<span><span></span>
				</span>to<span><span></span>
				</span>Kondo Decl.).<span><span></span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">85.</span>BB Frame did not make any payroll disbursements in 2020. (Exs.<span><span></span>
				</span>1 &<span><span></span>
				</span>25<span><span></span>
				</span>to<span><span></span>
				</span>Kondo Decl.) In 2020,<span>
				</span>Quevedo-Garcia<span><span></span>
				</span>caused payroll disbursements for<span>
				</span>framing<span><span></span>
				</span>projects, including the projects involved in the last<span>
				</span>four<span><span></span>
				</span>of the five underlying inspections here,<span><span></span>
				</span>to be made by<span>
				</span>BM Frame. (Exs. 1, 11, 25 & 29<span><span></span>
				</span>to<span><span></span>
				</span>Kondo Decl.).<span><span></span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">86.</span>BB Frame used the three trucks that Frame Q had used in the operation of its framing business, even though at least one of those vehicles remained registered in the name of Frame Q<span>
				</span>over<span><span></span>
				</span>the<span>
				</span>course of the underlying inspections. (Ex. B to<span>
				</span>Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.; Ex. 4 to Kondo Decl.).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">87.</span>Quevedo-Garcia expressly and falsely held out to OSHA officials during the<span>
				</span>first of the<span>
				</span>underlying inspections that precipitated these consolidated cases that Frame Q was the company performing<span>
				</span>work at the inspected<span>
				</span>construction<span>
				</span>sites<span><span></span>
				</span>and<span>
				</span>that<span>
				</span>the workers were<span><span></span>
				</span>employees of<span><span></span>
				</span>Frame Q. (Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.<span><span></span>
				</span>¶ 14). Quevedo-Garcia did not disclose to OSHA officials that Frame Q<span><span></span>
				</span>had been<span><span></span>
				</span>dissolved and that the employees present at the first of the five inspections were employees of BB Frame. Until April 2020, when an attorney for Quevedo-Garcia informed OSHA that Frame Q was out of business,<span>
				</span>OSHA<span>
				</span>held the<span>
				</span>false understanding<span>
				</span>that the<span>
				</span>employees<span>
				</span>present for the five underlying inspections<span>
				</span>were Frame Q employees. (Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.<span><span></span>
				</span>¶ 12). </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">88.</span>Prior to the issuance of the citations at issue here on June 2, 2020, OSHA concluded that BB Frame, not the dissolved Frame Q,<span><span></span>
				</span>was the corporate entity performing the construction<span>
				</span>work<span>
				</span>at all five of the worksite inspections. Consequently, the citations identified “BB Frame LLC d/b/a Frame Q LLC, as successor to Frame Q LLC” as the cited employer (as well as Quevedo-Garcia individually). The separate complaints filed by the Secretary in each of these five matters continued with this description of BB Frame as both (a) “doing business as” Frame Q, and (b) being a successor company to Frame Q.<span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">89.</span>On November 19, 2020, Quevedo caused BB Frame to be voluntarily dissolved. This was twelve weeks after the Secretary had filed separate complaints in each of the above captioned matters seeking to affirm all citation items and proposed penalties against<span><span></span>
				</span>both<span><span></span>
				</span>BB Frame and Quevedo-Garcia. (Ex. 10 to Kondo Decl.).<span><span></span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">90.</span>There is no evidence that BB Frame had crippling debt when Quevedo-Garcia caused it to be dissolved, which<span>
				</span>occurred<span>
				</span>before the penalties proposed against BB Frame became final orders. The only evidence of BB Frame’s indebtedness<span>
				</span>at the time of its dissolution<span>
				</span>is its 2019 tax return which states that at the end of the tax year it had balance sheet liabilities<span>
				</span>totaling<span><span></span>
				</span>$21,754<span><span></span>
				</span>(exclusive of a balance sheet liability of<span><span></span>
				</span>$27,500<span><span></span>
				</span>for “capital stock,” which would have been owing to Quevedo-Garcia and his sister as the only owners of the company). The two balance sheet liabilities<span>
				</span>identified that totaled $21,754<span>
				</span>were “accounts payable” of $1,557 and “other current liabilities” totaling $20,197 that were not itemized in the return. (Ex. 7 to Kondo Decl.).<span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">91.</span>Quevedo dissolved BB Frame<span>
				</span>not because of overwhelming debt but rather to<span><span></span>
				</span>avoid<span>
				</span>collection of any of the<span>
				</span>OSHA penalties<span><span></span>
				</span>that had been proposed against BB Frame in the underlying citations<span><span></span>
				</span>(but that had not become final orders against BB Frame at the time of its dissolution). The Secretary’s ability to discover and present evidence relating to QuevedoGarcia’s reasons for dissolving BB Frame in support of his motion for summary judgment was substantially impeded by QuevedoGarcia’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory selfincrimination.</p>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">BM Frame<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">LLC</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(BM Frame)</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">92.</span>On December 24, 2019, about three weeks after OSHA<span>
				</span>had<span>
				</span>opened the first of the five inspections involved in these consolidated cases, Quevedo-Garcia caused BM Frame to be formed,<span>
				</span>with<span><span></span>
				</span>Quevedo-Garcia<span><span></span>
				</span>owning 75% and<span><span></span>
				</span>one<span><span></span>
				</span>Hector<span>
				</span>F.<span>
				</span>Roca<span>
				</span>owning<span>
				</span>25%.<span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref3" href="#ftn3">3</a></span><span><span></span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>(Exs.<span><span></span>
				</span>11<span><span></span>
				</span>&<span><span></span>
				</span>13<span><span></span>
				</span>to<span><span></span>
				</span>Kondo Decl.)<span><span></span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>The<span>
				</span>declared<span>
				</span>planned activity<span>
				</span>of<span><span></span>
				</span>the new company was “miscellaneous construction & repair.” (Exs. 13 & 26 to Kondo Decl.).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">93.</span>Two days later, on December 26, 2019, Quevedo-Garcia<span>
				</span>caused to be filed with the<span>
				</span>State of New Jersey<span>
				</span>a certificate<span><span></span>
				</span>of alternate name<span>
				</span>that<span><span></span>
				</span>authorized BM Frame to do business as<span>
				</span>“BB Frame”<span><span></span>
				</span>even though BB Frame continued to exist as a<span><span></span>
				</span>New Jersey limited liability company. (Exs. 13 & 26 to Kondo Decl.).<span><span></span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">94.</span>About four weeks later, on January 23, 2020, BM Frame<span>
				</span>applied<span><span></span>
				</span>for a home improvement contractor license with the<span>
				</span>State of<span>
				</span>New Jersey. The application lists<span><span></span>
				</span>the name<span>
				</span>“BB Frame” as another “name[<span><span></span>
				</span>] under which<span>
				</span>[BM Frame]<span><span></span>
				</span>does business.” (Ex. 12<span><span></span>
				</span>to<span><span></span>
				</span>Kondo Decl.). </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">95.</span>On<span><span></span>
				</span>or about<span><span></span>
				</span>December 31, 2019, BM Frame opened a<span>
				</span>business checking<span>
				</span>account under the name “BM Frame LLC<span>
				</span>TA<span>
				</span>[i.e., “trading as”] BB Frame,”<span><span></span>
				</span>making an initial deposit of $500. (Ex. 27<span><span></span>
				</span>to<span><span></span>
				</span>Kondo<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.).<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">96.</span>Beginning<span>
				</span>in January 2020, BM Frame’s checking account was used as the primary account for<span>
				</span>deposits and disbursements for<span>
				</span>construction<span>
				</span>projects.<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>In the month of January 2020, there were eleven deposits made into the account<span>
				</span>that<span>
				</span>totaled<span><span></span>
				</span>$162,600 and 97 withdrawal transactions<span><span></span>
				</span>that<span><span></span>
				</span>totaled<span><span></span>
				</span>$135,318.<span><span></span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>(Exs. 27<span><span></span>
				</span>& 30<span><span></span>
				</span>to<span><span></span>
				</span>Kondo<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.).<span><span></span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>The record does not disclose the sources of the deposits to the bank account. The Secretary’s ability to discover and present evidence relating to<span>
				</span>the sources of these deposits<span>
				</span>was substantially impeded by Quevedo Garcia’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">97.</span>Starting in January 2020<span><span></span>
				</span>and continuing to early August 2020,<span><span></span>
				</span>the<span><span></span>
				</span>employees<span>
				</span>who<span>
				</span>supplied<span><span></span>
				</span>labor for construction projects<span><span></span>
				</span>performed by<span>
				</span>BB Frame and/or BM Frame<span><span></span>
				</span>were paid<span>
				</span>out of<span><span></span>
				</span>BM Frame’s business checking account.<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>(Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl. ¶¶ 14–21;<span>
				</span>Exs. 27, 29 & 30 to Kondo Decl.).<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>From January<span>
				</span>10,<span>
				</span>2020<span><span></span>
				</span>through August 16, 2020, BM Frame made payroll disbursements<span>
				</span>totaling $185,980<span>
				</span>to eleven individuals. (Exs. 27, 29 & 30<span><span></span>
				</span>to<span><span></span>
				</span>Kondo Decl.).<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>Six of<span>
				</span>the<span>
				</span>eight employees<span>
				</span>who had been on<span>
				</span>BB Frame’s payroll<span><span></span>
				</span>through December 2019<span><span></span>
				</span>received payroll disbursements<span>
				</span>in 2020<span>
				</span>drawn on<span>
				</span>BM Frame’s business checking account.<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>QuevedoGarcia’s sister, who was<span><span></span>
				</span>a 30% owner of BB Frame<span><span></span>
				</span>but<span><span></span>
				</span>had not received any payroll disbursements from BB Frame’s business checking account,<span><span></span>
				</span>receives<span><span></span>
				</span>payroll disbursements from BM Frame<span><span></span>
				</span>in 2020<span>
				</span>that<span>
				</span>totaled<span><span></span>
				</span>$17,100.<span><span></span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>(Exs. 25 & 29<span><span></span>
				</span>to<span><span></span>
				</span>Kondo Decl.).<span><span></span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">98.</span>In a letter from the attorney for Quevedo-Garcia dated November 12,<span>
				</span>2020<span><span></span>
				</span>to an attorney for the Secretary, the<span>
				</span>attorney<span>
				</span>provided a copy of a paycheck written to QuevedoGarcia dated January 13, 2020 that was drawn on BM Frame’s checking account. The attorney represented that Quevedo-Garcia was currently employed by BM Frame, and he erroneously represented that Quevedo-Garcia was not a “principal” of BM Frame. (In truth, Quevedo-Garcia owned 75% of the company).<span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref4" href="#ftn4">4</a></span> (Exs. 4<span><span></span>
				</span>& 30<span><span></span>
				</span>to Kondo Decl.). </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">99.</span>In a letter from the attorney for Quevedo-Garcia to an attorney for the Secretary dated June 21, 2021, the attorney stated that<span>
				</span>“BM Frame<span>
				</span>is a closed<span>
				</span>business.” (Ex. F to Sec’y’s Mot.<span><span></span>
				</span>to Compel, July<span><span></span>
				</span>7, 2021). No other information was provided regarding the closing of BM Frame. The Secretary’s ability to discover and present evidence on this matter of fact in support of his motion for summary judgment was substantially impeded by Quevedo-Garcia’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege<span><span></span>
				</span>in July 2021.</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">100.</span>In<span>
				</span>Quevedo-Garcia’s verified<span>
				</span>interrogatory responses<span>
				</span>in November 2020,<span><span></span>
				</span>he<span><span></span>
				</span>falsely represented that he was not<span>
				</span>an “owner, member, partner, shareholder, officer, and/or director” of any companies<span><span></span>
				</span>other than Frame Q and BB Frame, both of which<span>
				</span>he declared in<span>
				</span>had been<span><span></span>
				</span>“closed.” (Ex. 4 to Kondo Decl.). In a later<span><span></span>
				</span>verified<span><span></span>
				</span>interrogatory response<span>
				</span>in April 2021, Quevedo-Garcia continued to falsely represent that he had no ownership interest or leadership position in any other business organizations other than Frame Q and BB Frame. (Ex. 31 to Kondo Decl.). </p>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:8px; text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">Other<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">Alter Ego Theory Factors</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">Capitalization and Solvency<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">101.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">BB Frame’s 2019 federal tax return<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">r</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">eflects the company had a</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span>balance sheet</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span>liability of $27,500 for “capital stock” at both the beginning and the end of the tax year. (Ex. 7 to Kondo Decl.). </span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">102.</span>BB Frame never owned real property. (Exs. 4 & 7 to Kondo Decl.). Except for trucks,<span>
				</span>BB Frame<span>
				</span>never<span>
				</span>owned tools or<span><span></span>
				</span>equipment valued<span>
				</span>more than<span><span></span>
				</span>$200. BB Frame utilized three trucks<span><span></span>
				</span>in its business, at least one of which<span>
				</span>remained registered to Frame Q, although BB Frame depreciated<span>
				</span>multiple<span><span></span>
				</span>vehicles on its<span>
				</span>2019 federal tax return<span><span></span>
				</span>(and BM Frame depreciated one vehicle on its 2020 federal tax return). (Exs. 4, 7 & 11<span><span></span>
				</span>to Kondo Decl.;<span>
				</span>Sydenstricker<span><span></span>
				</span>Decl.).<span><span></span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">103.</span>BB Frame’s business checking account had a negative balance throughout the course<span><span></span>
				</span>of the<span>
				</span>five<span>
				</span>OSHA inspections that precipitated these consolidated matters. (Ex. 28 to Kondo Decl.). </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">104.</span>BB Frame’s tax return for tax year 2019 reported gross receipts of $388,533 and<span>
				</span>total income<span>
				</span>of $297,087. The<span>
				</span>2019<span>
				</span>tax return reflects an<span>
				</span>ordinary business<span>
				</span>loss of $1,181,<span><span></span>
				</span>after<span>
				</span>making deductions from total income<span>
				</span>that<span>
				</span>included<span><span></span>
				</span>deducting<span>
				</span>$127,500<span>
				</span>in<span>
				</span>compensation to QuevedoGarcia.<span><span></span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>(Ex. 7 to Kondo Decl.).<span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">105.</span>BM Frame’s federal tax return for tax year 2020 indicates that at the beginning of the tax year it had no balance sheet liability for capital stock but at the end of the tax year it had a balance sheet liability for capital stock of $42,000. The Secretary’s ability to discover and present evidence relating to<span>
				</span>the source of the funds for this stated capitalization of BM Frame<span>
				</span>was substantially impeded by QuevedoGarcia’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">106.</span>In BM Frame’s federal tax return for tax year 2020,<span>
				</span>the company<span><span></span>
				</span>reported<span>
				</span>gross receipts of $426,451<span><span></span>
				</span>and a total income of $235,066.<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>The tax return reflects ordinary business income of $12,464, after making deductions from total income<span>
				</span>that included<span>
				</span>$75,000 in compensation to QuevedoGarcia.<span><span></span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>(The 25% owner of BM Frame, Hector Roca, received no compensation in 2020).<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>(Ex. 11 to Kondo Decl.). Quevedo-Garcia reported his proportionate share<span>
				</span>of<span>
				</span>BM Frame’s<span><span></span>
				</span>ordinary business income of $12,464<span>
				</span>in 2020<span>
				</span>on his personal tax return for tax year 2020. (Ex. 1 to Kondo Decl.).<span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">107.</span>In a verified interrogatory response,<span>
				</span>Quevedo-Garcia<span>
				</span>stated that<span>
				</span>both Frame Q and<span>
				</span>BB Frame<span>
				</span>were<span>
				</span>“closed<span>
				</span>due to debt and insufficient income.” (Ex. 31 to Kondo Decl.). </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">108.</span>Quevedo-Garcia caused<span>
				</span>BB Frame to<span>
				</span>be voluntarily dissolved<span>
				</span>at least in part to avoid<span>
				</span>collection of<span><span></span>
				</span>the<span>
				</span>proposed<span>
				</span>penalties of<span>
				</span>$2,004,225. Those proposed penalties<span><span></span>
				</span>later became<span>
				</span>final orders<span><span></span>
				</span>against BB Frame<span><span></span>
				</span>after BB Frame had been voluntarily dissolved. (Quevedo-Garcia Mot.<span><span></span>
				</span>¶¶ 11–14; Anger Decl.).<span><span></span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>The Secretary’s ability to discover and present evidence relating to<span>
				</span>the reasons that Quevedo-Garcia determined to dissolve BB Frame<span>
				</span>was substantially impeded by QuevedoGarcia’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.</p>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">C</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">orporate<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">Officers,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">F</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">ormalities<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">and Corporate</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">R</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">ecords</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">109.</span>Quevedo-Garcia was BB Frame’s president and its only officer. BB Frame’s other member, Magda Quevedo-Garcia, had no role in the operation of the company. (Exs. 4 & 31 to Kondo Decl.).<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">110.</span>BB Frame held no formal meetings of its two members. (Ex. 31 to Kondo Decl.).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">111.</span>BB Frame maintained no<span>
				</span>operating agreement,<span><span></span>
				</span>by-laws, resolutions, amendments, meeting minutes, or meeting memoranda.<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>(Exs. 4, 5 & 32 to Kondo Decl.).<span><span></span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">112.</span>Most of the contracts into which BB Frame entered<span>
				</span>with suppliers and other contractors<span>
				</span>were verbal agreements only.<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>(Ex. 31 to Kondo Decl.).<span><span></span>
				</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">Siphoning of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">Corporate</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Funds</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">113.</span>As indicated supra in ¶ 12,<span>
				</span>Quevedo-Garcia<span><span></span>
				</span>and his sister<span>
				</span>Magda<span><span></span>
				</span>own a company called Q Properties LLC<span>
				</span>(Q Properties)<span>
				</span>that has its<span>
				</span>principal office at the Quevedo-Garcia Residence. Quevedo-Garcia<span>
				</span>owns<span><span></span>
				</span>60%<span>
				</span>and<span>
				</span>Magda<span><span></span>
				</span>owns<span><span></span>
				</span>40%. (Exs. 1, 3 & 14 to Kondo Decl.).<span><span></span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>Q Properties is in the business of renting and selling real estate,<span><span></span>
				</span>and in its 2020 federal tax return it reported receiving rents from residential real estate<span>
				</span>with the address<span><span></span>
				</span>54 Lincoln Avenue, Cliffside Park, New Jersey. Quevedo-Garcia did not identify his ownership interest in Q Properties<span><span></span>
				</span>in his<span>
				</span>verified responses to two sets of interrogatories<span><span></span>
				</span>(responses dated Nov. 20,<span>
				</span>2020<span><span></span>
				</span>and Apr. 26, 2021), but rather in those responses<span>
				</span>he<span>
				</span>falsely represented that he<span>
				</span>did not have an<span><span></span>
				</span>ownership interest<span><span></span>
				</span>in any<span>
				</span>companies<span><span></span>
				</span>other than<span><span></span>
				</span>Frame Q and BB Frame. (Exs. 4 & 31 to Kondo Decl.). The attorney for Quevedo-Garcia<span>
				</span>later<span>
				</span>falsely represented to counsel<span><span></span>
				</span>for the Secretary in a letter dated June 21,<span>
				</span>2021<span><span></span>
				</span>that<span>
				</span>Q Properties “is not and was not owned” by Quevedo-Garcia. (Ex. F to Sec’y’s Mot.<span><span></span>
				</span>to Compel, Jul 7, 2021). (It is presumed that Quevedo-Garcia’s attorney was unaware of the falsity of that representation when he made it.)<span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">114.</span>Between August 2,<span>
				</span>2018<span><span></span>
				</span>and July 11, 2019, Quevedo-Garcia<span><span></span>
				</span>caused<span>
				</span>$84,600 to be transferred from BB Frame to Q Properties by<span>
				</span>issuing<span>
				</span>the following checks<span><span></span>
				</span>written on BB Frame’s business checking account<span><span></span>
				</span>(Ex. 33 to Kondo Decl.):</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">a.</span>Check dated August 2,<span>
				</span>2018<span><span></span>
				</span>for $44,000. In the<span>
				</span>check’s “memo”<span><span></span>
				</span>line,<span><span></span>
				</span>QuevedoGarcia<span>
				</span>handwrote the words “Profits.” </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">b.</span>Check<span><span></span>
				</span>dated<span>
				</span>August<span>
				</span>6,<span>
				</span>2018<span><span></span>
				</span>for<span>
				</span>$9,600. In the check’s “memo” line,<span><span></span>
				</span>Quevedo-Garcia<span>
				</span>handwrote<span>
				</span>what appears to be<span><span></span>
				</span>the words<span><span></span>
				</span>“2 Months Deposit Rent and one month rent at”<span>
				</span>54 Lincoln Avenue, Cliffside Park.<span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">c.</span>Check dated April 25,<span>
				</span>2019<span><span></span>
				</span>for $26,000. In the check’s “memo” line,<span><span></span>
				</span>Quevedo-Garcia<span>
				</span>handwrote the word “Profits<span><span></span>
				</span>2018.” </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">d.</span>Check dated July 1,<span>
				</span>2019<span><span></span>
				</span>for $7,000. The check’s “memo” line<span>
				</span>reflects the handwritten words<span><span></span>
				</span>“Monthly garage rent.” </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">e.</span>Check dated July 11,<span>
				</span>2019<span><span></span>
				</span>for $8,000. The check’s “memo” line<span>
				</span>reflects the handwritten words “Rent for May & June garage at 54 Lincoln Ave Cliffside Park.”<span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">115.</span>The Secretary’s ability to discover and present evidence of greater detail regarding the<span>
				</span>reasons for these disbursements to Q Properties described<span><span></span>
				</span>in the preceding ¶ 114(a)–(e) in support of his motion for summary judgment was substantially impeded by Quevedo-Garcia’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege.</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">116.</span>After<span>
				</span>depleting<span><span></span>
				</span>BB Frame’s checking account in late 2019<span><span></span>
				</span>and beginning to use BM Frame’s business checking account<span>
				</span>for<span>
				</span>deposits and disbursements relating to<span><span></span>
				</span>corporate<span><span></span>
				</span>construction activities, Quevedo-Garcia<span>
				</span>also<span>
				</span>began to use BM Frame’s checking account to make<span><span></span>
				</span>some<span><span></span>
				</span>payments<span><span></span>
				</span>that<span><span></span>
				</span>lack any apparent<span><span></span>
				</span>connection to<span>
				</span>the<span><span></span>
				</span>corporate<span><span></span>
				</span>framing<span>
				</span>work, as follows:</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">a.</span>By check dated April 20, 2020, Quevedo-Garcia caused to be transferred to Q Properties<span>
				</span>the sum of $2,000. (Ex. 34 to Kondo. Decl.).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">b.</span>By five<span><span></span>
				</span>checks written between April and August 2020, Quevedo-Garcia<span><span></span>
				</span>caused to<span>
				</span>be transferred<span>
				</span>a total of $18,000<span>
				</span>to<span>
				</span>Q Properties II<span><span></span>
				</span>(a company that<span>
				</span>is described supra in ¶ 13).<span>
				</span><span><span></span>
				</span>(Ex. 35 to Kondo Decl.). One of those checks was for the sum of $11,000 and<span><span></span>
				</span>the memo line of the check<span>
				</span>bore the<span>
				</span>handwritten<span>
				</span>note “Loan to Q Properties II LLC.” Another check had no notation in the memo line. Three checks totaling $7,000 bore<span>
				</span>handwritten<span>
				</span>notations in their respective memo lines<span>
				</span>indicating they were for rent payments for<span>
				</span>real property in Fairview, New Jersey at<span>
				</span>[redacted]. (QuevedoGarcia<span><span></span>
				</span>testified<span><span></span>
				</span>in another Commission proceeding<span><span></span>
				</span>in September 2017<span><span></span>
				</span>that<span><span></span>
				</span>he had<span>
				</span>resided<span>
				</span>at<span><span></span>
				</span>that address in Fairview, New Jersey<span><span></span>
				</span>[Ex. 17<span><span></span>
				</span>at 8<span><span></span>
				</span>to<span>
				</span>Kondo Decl.].)<span><span></span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">c.</span>In<span>
				</span>the spring of<span><span></span>
				</span>2020, Quevedo-Garcia wrote<span>
				</span>four<span>
				</span>checks from BM Frame’s<span>
				</span>checking<span>
				</span>account totaling $11,600 for the apparent benefit of<span>
				</span>Q Nails<span><span></span>
				</span>(a company that is<span>
				</span>described supra at ¶ 14). Two checks<span>
				</span>that were<span>
				</span>payable<span><span></span>
				</span>to Q Nails<span><span></span>
				</span>totaled $5,900<span>
				</span>and reflect<span><span></span>
				</span>the<span><span></span>
				</span>handwritten<span>
				</span>word “loan” in their<span><span></span>
				</span>memo<span><span></span>
				</span>lines. Another check payable to Q Nails<span><span></span>
				</span>in the sum of $3,000 has no entry<span>
				</span>in the memo line. The fourth check<span><span></span>
				</span>in the sum of $2,700<span><span></span>
				</span>is<span>
				</span>payable<span><span></span>
				</span>to<span>
				</span>an individual<span>
				</span>(whose<span><span></span>
				</span>name not reflected in any other documentation of record)<span>
				</span>and<span><span></span>
				</span>in the memo line<span><span></span>
				</span>is<span>
				</span>handwritten<span>
				</span>the words<span>
				</span>“June rent for Q Nail Boutique.” (Ex. 36 to Kondo Decl.).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">117.</span>The Secretary’s ability to discover and present evidence of greater detail regarding the reasons for the disbursements from BM Frame’s bank account described in the preceding ¶ 116(a)–(c) in support of his motion for summary judgment was substantially impeded by Quevedo-Garcia’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege.</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">118.</span>While Quevedo-Garcia<span>
				</span>moved<span><span></span>
				</span>monies<span>
				</span>from<span><span></span>
				</span>BB Frame and BM Frame bank accounts to other family-owned businesses,<span><span></span>
				</span>and<span><span></span>
				</span>he<span>
				</span>also<span>
				</span>disbursed monies from<span><span></span>
				</span>those accounts for the benefit<span><span></span>
				</span>of those other companies,<span><span></span>
				</span>in some instances other family-owned businesses disbursed their funds for the<span><span></span>
				</span>apparent<span><span></span>
				</span>benefit of BB Frame, as described below. </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">a.</span>The application fee for BB Frame’s home improvement license was paid<span><span></span>
				</span>in March 2019<span><span></span>
				</span>by a check drawn on the bank account of Q Nails. (Ex.<span>
				</span>8 to Kondo Decl.). </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">b.</span>An electronic payment<span>
				</span>in the amount of $2,470.32 for BB Frame’s state payroll taxes for the fourth quarter of 2019<span>
				</span>was made on January 30,<span>
				</span>2020<span><span></span>
				</span>from<span>
				</span>a<span>
				</span>bank account of<span>
				</span>Q Nails. (Ex. 37 to Kondo Decl.).</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">119.</span>From June 2018 through August 7, 2020,<span>
				</span>Quevedo-Garcia<span>
				</span>caused himself to be<span>
				</span>paid a salary of $2,500 per week from the payroll accounts of BB Frame and BM Frame. (Exs. 7, 25, 29 & 33 to Kondo Decl.).</p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">D</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">ISCUSSION</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">Summary Judgment Standard</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">& Procedures</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Commission Rule 40(j) provides that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Rule</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>56) governs motions for summary judgment in Commission</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>proceedings</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. 29 C.F.R. § 2200.40(j)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Rule 56</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">(a)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>provides<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">that “[t]he court shall grant</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">genuine<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">In determining whether there exists a genuine dispute of material fact, “the substantive evidentiary standards that apply to the case” apply also to assessment of the evidence on motion for summary judgment. </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. (</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Liberty Lobby</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">)</span>, 477 U.S. 242, 255<span><span></span>
					</span>(1986)<span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span>(ruling that the substantive evidentiary standard of “clear and convincing evidence” for a libel claim must be applied in adjudicating a motion for summary judgment on that claim).</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">The moving party has the initial burden to show the absence of any genuine dispute concerning any material fact. </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Celotex Corp. v.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Catrett</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">(</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Celotex</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">)</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986)</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">discussing</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Adickes</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>v. S.H. Kress & Co.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 398 U.S. 144 (1970</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">)</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "> </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. </span>If<span><span></span>
					</span>the moving party discharges<span><span></span>
					</span>the<span><span></span>
					</span>initial burden<span><span></span>
					</span>of<span><span></span>
					</span>showing that<span>
					</span>it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,<span><span></span>
					</span>then<span><span></span>
					</span>the non-moving party “may not rest upon mere allegation or denials of his pleading, but ... must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Liberty Lobby</span>, 477 U.S.<span>
					</span>at<span>
					</span>248.<span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Thus, when faced with a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">“</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">present affirmative evidence</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">” that shows there is a genuine dispute for trial.</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Id.<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">at 257. </span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">Such “affirmative evidence” includes<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">“</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">...</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">” as described in Rule 56(c)(1)(A).<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Manua's</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">, Inc.</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">27 BNA OSHC 1469, 1472-73 (</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">No. 18-1059, 2018)<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">(nonmovant cannot overcome summary judgment merely based on the possibility that material facts it has not yet identified<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">exist</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>but</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">instead<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">must present facts essential to justify its opposition)</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">aff'd</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 948 F.3d 401 (D.C. Cir. 2020)</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">Rule 56(e) sets forth the potential consequences of a non-moving party’s failure to make the required affirmative showing of specific facts in response to a properly supported motion for summary judgment:</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:normal; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; margin-right:96px; "><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">(e)<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">Failing to Properly Support or Address a Fact.</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party’s assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may ...<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:normal; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; text-indent:.318cm; margin-right:96px; "><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">(1) give an opportunity to properly support or address the<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">fact;</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:normal; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; text-indent:.318cm; margin-right:96px; "><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">(2)<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">motion</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">;</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:normal; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; text-indent:.318cm; margin-right:96px; "><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">(3)<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">—</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">including the facts considered undisputed</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">—</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">show that the movant is entitled to it</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">; or</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:normal; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; text-indent:.318cm; margin-right:96px; "><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">(4) issue any other appropriate order</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:normal; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; text-indent:.318cm; margin-right:96px; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">For a party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment to show the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact, the evidentiary material favoring the non-moving party must be sufficient to permit a finder of fact to find in the non-moving party’s favor. </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Liberty Lobby</span>, 477 U.S.<span>
					</span>at 249. But if that evidentiary material “is merely colorable,<span><span></span>
					</span>or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span><span></span>
					</span>at 249-50 (internal citations omitted). <span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">A</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">mere<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">combination of “conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation” will not defeat a properly supported summary judgment motion.<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Calvi</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>v. Knox County</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 470 F.3d 422, 426 (1st Cir. 2006)</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">In considering a motion for summary judgment</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">a court is</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">“</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">whom summary judgment is sought.”</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Stern v. Trustees of Columbia Univ.</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 131 F.3d 305, 312 (2d Cir.</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">1997)</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">;<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">see also Liberty Lobby</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 477 U.S.<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">at<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">255 (1986) (the “evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor”), and</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Ford Motor Co.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 23 BNA OSHC 1593, 1594 (No. 10-1483, 2011)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">(</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">stating that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">“a judge is not to decide factual disputes</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,” but rather must “</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">determine whether any such disputes exist”</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">“[N]</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ot</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>only must there be no genuine dispute as to the evidentiary facts, but there must also be no controversy as to the inferences to be drawn from them.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">” </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Ford Motor</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 23 BNA OSHC at 1594,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">citing</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Schwabenbauer</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>v. Bd. of Educ. of City Sch. Dist. of City of Olean</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 667 F.2d 305, 313 (2d Cir. 1991).</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">When, as here,<span>
					</span>both parties move for summary judgment,<span>
					</span>“each party’s motion must be independently evaluated under”<span><span></span>
					</span>these same principles.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Ford Motor</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 23 BNA OSHC at 1594</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">.</span> “A judge is not obligated to grant judgment as a matter of law to either<span>
					</span>side, and<span><span></span>
					</span>may deny both motions.” <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span>
				</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">Establishing “Employer” Stat</span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">u</span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">s Based on Alter Ego Theory</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">Where civil penalties under the Act have been assessed against a corporate employer for that<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">corporate<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">employer’s violation of OSHA standards, t</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">he<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">Commission has authority</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>under the Act to</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">“</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">pierce the corporate veil</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">”</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">hold an individual<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">(or<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">a</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">different<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">business organization)<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">responsible for<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">the<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">corporate employer’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">violations and<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">responsibility for<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">resulting<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">penalties. </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Altor, Inc.</span>, 23 BNA OSHC 1458 (No. 99-0958, 2011);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">see also</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">United States v. Cusack</span>, 806 F. Supp. 47, 51 (D.N.J. 1992)<span><span></span>
					</span>(determining that<span><span></span>
					</span>the corporate structure of an employer may be disregarded to impose criminal liability on an individual as an “employer” under section 17(e) of the Act upon proof that the individual’s “role in a corporate entity (particularly a small one) may be so pervasive and total that<span>
					</span>[the<span><span></span>
					</span>individual]<span>
					</span>is in fact the corporation and is therefore an employer” subject to criminal liability<span><span></span>
					</span>under<span>
					</span>section 17(e)<span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "> </span>).<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Whether to pierce the corporate veil to find an individual<span>
					</span>(or other entity)<span>
					</span>to be an “employer” as defined in the Act<span>
					</span>involves the application of<span>
					</span>federal common law<span><span></span>
					</span>that articulates<span><span></span>
					</span>an “alter ego” theory of liability. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">United States v. Pisani</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Pisani</span>), 646 F.2d 83, 88 (3d Cir. 1981). In the Third Circuit, which is one of the courts<span>
					</span>to<span><span></span>
					</span>which judicial review of a final decision of the Commission in this matter may be sought,<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>substantive evidentiary standard of proof<span>
					</span>to<span>
					</span>establish<span>
					</span>alter ego<span><span></span>
					</span>liability<span><span></span>
					</span>is<span><span></span>
					</span>“clear and convincing evidence.”<span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; "><a name="ftnref5" href="#ftn5">5</a></span>
					<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Trustees of Nat. Elevator Indus. Pension, Health Benefit & Educ. Funds v.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Lutyk</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Lutyk</span>), 332 F.3d 188, 192 (3d Cir. 2003). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">“The ‘clear and convincing evidence’ standard is the intermediate burden of proof, in between ‘a preponderance of the evidence’ and ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’<span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "> ”</span>
					<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Araujo v. N</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">.</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "> </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">J</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">.</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Transit Rail Operations, Inc.</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Araujo</span>), 708 F.3d 152, 159 (3d Cir. 2013). The quality of evidence<span>
					</span>for<span><span></span>
					</span>meeting<span><span></span>
					</span>the “clear and convincing”<span><span></span>
					</span>standard<span><span></span>
					</span>is<span>
					</span>such<span>
					</span>evidence<span>
					</span>as<span><span></span>
					</span>shows<span><span></span>
					</span>that<span><span></span>
					</span>“the truth” of the facts<span>
					</span>claimed<span>
					</span>is “highly probable.”<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span>,<span>
					</span>quoting<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Colorado v. New Mexico</span>, 467 U.S. 310, 316 (1984).<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">The<span>
					</span>federal common law<span>
					</span>analysis<span><span></span>
					</span>for<span>
					</span>piercing<span><span></span>
					</span>a corporate veil<span>
					</span>has<span>
					</span>two<span>
					</span>prongs:<span><span></span>
					</span>(1) determining whether<span>
					</span>“a company has not operated as an entity separate from its shareholders,” and (2)<span><span></span>
					</span>determining whether<span>
					</span>“the situation presents an element of injustice or fundamental unfairness.” <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Altor</span>, 23 BNA OSHC at<span>
					</span>1461, citing<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Pisani</span>, 646 F.2d<span>
					</span>at<span><span></span>
					</span>88. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">In considering<span>
					</span>the first<span>
					</span>prong, which<span>
					</span>pertains<span><span></span>
					</span>to<span>
					</span>determining<span>
					</span>whether “a separate corporate personality no longer exists,”<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">id.</span>,<span><span></span>
					</span>the Commission<span>
					</span>has<span>
					</span>noted that the Third Circuit “weighs<span><span></span>
					</span>several factors” as follows:</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; line-height:normal; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; margin-right:96px; ">(1) gross undercapitalization; (2) insolvency; (3) failure to observe corporate formalities; (4) non-payment of dividends; (5) siphoning of funds of the corporation by the dominant stockholder; (6) non-functioning of other officers or directors; (7) absence of corporate records; and (8) corporation acts as a mere facade for the operations of the dominant stockholder or stockholders.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Id</span>.<span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; "><a name="ftnref6" href="#ftn6">6</a></span><span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>The Third Circuit has observed that these factors do not constitute “elements of a rigid test,”<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Lutyk</span>, 332 F.3d at 194,<span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>indeed<span>
					</span>do not constitute a “test” at all,<span><span></span>
					</span>but rather are considered “to determine whether the debtor corporation is little more than a legal fiction.” <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Lutyk</span>, 332 F.3d at 197. The Third Circuit has noted further that<span>
					</span>the factors<span>
					</span>do not constitute “the exclusive approach to corporate veil piercing.” <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Am. Bell Inc. v.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Fed'n</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of Tel. Workers of Pa.</span><span><span></span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Am</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">.</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Bell)</span>, 736 F.2d 879, 886 (3d Cir. 1984).</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">The<span>
					</span>second prong<span><span></span>
					</span>of the Third Circuit’s<span>
					</span>analysis—that the situation<span><span></span>
					</span>presents<span><span></span>
					</span>an element of injustice or fundamental unfairness—includes situations in which disregarding the corporate form would<span>
					</span>“prevent<span><span></span>
					</span>circumvention of a statute or avoidance of a clear legislative purpose.”<span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Pisani</span>, 646 F.2d at<span>
					</span>88 (concluding the<span>
					</span>Medicare statute<span>
					</span>would be circumvented if the corporate form were not disregarded to hold an individual responsible for Medicare overpayments<span><span></span>
					</span>that had been<span>
					</span>made to<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>corporation), citing<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">United States v. Normandy House Nursing Home, Inc.</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Normandy House</span>), 428 F. Supp. 421 (D. Mass. 1977)<span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Calibri; color:#201F1E; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Calibri; color:#201F1E; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "> </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#201F1E; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">disapproved on a different issue, United States v. Hughes House Nursing Home, Inc.</span><span style="color:#201F1E; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 710 F.2d 891, 894 (1st Cir. 1983)</span>;<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">see also</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Altor</span>, 23 BNA OSHC at<span>
					</span>1461<span><span></span>
					</span>n.<span>
					</span>6 (noting that the Third Circuit and New Jersey have similar<span>
					</span>“tests”<span><span></span>
					</span>for piercing the corporate veil,<span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>observing that the New Jersey<span>
					</span>approach<span><span></span>
					</span>involves determining “whether recognizing the corporate form would perpetuate fraud or injustice, or otherwise circumvent the law”);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Quinn v.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Butz</span>,<span><span></span>
					</span>510 F.2d 743, 758 n. 95<span><span></span>
					</span>(D.C.<span><span></span>
					</span>Cir. 1975) (noting that among the situations in which federal courts have disregarded the corporate form “are those wherein the corporate fiction would enable circumvention of a statute”). The Third Circuit has noted further that piercing the corporate veil may be in order “when<span>
					</span>recognition of the corporate entity would defeat public policy.” <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Am</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">.</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>B</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">ell</span>, 736 F.2d<span>
					</span>at<span><span></span>
					</span>886, quoting<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Zubik</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>v.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Zubik</span>, 384 F.2d 267, 272<span><span></span>
					</span>(3d Cir.<span><span></span>
					</span>1967).<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">“It is valid to organize a corporation for the purpose of avoiding personal liability.” <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Pardo v. Wilson Line of Washington, Inc.</span>, 414 F.2d 1145, 1149 (D.C. Cir. 1969).<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>Indeed, the<span><span></span>
					</span>very<span><span></span>
					</span>name given to the kind of business entity that is involved here––<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">limited liability</span><span><span></span>
					</span>company––indicates as much.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>Moreover, “the mere fact than an individual is the sole stockholder of a corporation will not by itself make him liable as the alter ego of the corporation.” <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Normandy House</span>, 428 F. Supp.<span><span></span>
					</span>at<span><span></span>
					</span>424;<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">accord</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">DeWitt Truck Brokers, Inc. v. W. Ray<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Flemming</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Fruit Co.</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">DeWitt Truck</span>), 540 F.2d 681, 685 (4th Cir. 1976) (“the mere fact that all or almost all of the corporate stock is owned by one individual or a few individuals, will not afford sufficient grounds for disregarding corporateness”). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Accordingly,<span>
					</span>“penetration of the corporate veil is a step to be taken cautiously,”<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Quinn v.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Butz</span>,<span><span></span>
					</span>510 F.2d<span>
					</span>at 759, and analysis “must start from the general rule that the corporate entity should be recognized and upheld, unless specific, unusual circumstances call for an exception.” <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Zubik</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>v.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Zubik</span>, 384 F.2d<span>
					</span>at<span><span></span>
					</span>273;<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">accord<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Am</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">.</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Bell</span><span><span></span>
					</span>736 F.2d at 886 (“court may only pierce the veil in<span>
					</span>‘specific, unusual circumstances’, lest it render the theory of limited liability useless”), and<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Altor</span>, 23 BNA OSHC at 1461 (“corporate entity should be recognized and upheld unless specific, unusual circumstances call for an exception”). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">“In deciding whether to pierce the corporate veil, courts are basically concerned with determining if equity requires that the shareholders’<span><span></span>
					</span>traditional insulation from personal liability be disregarded and with ascertaining if the corporate form is a sham, constituting the facade for the operations of the dominant shareholder.” <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Kaplan v. First Options of Chi</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">.</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">, Inc.</span><span><span></span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Kaplan</span>),<span>
					</span>19 F.3d 1503, 1521 (3d Cir. 1994),<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">aff'd</span>, 514 U.S. 938 (1995),<span>
					</span>quoting<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Wheeling–Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Intersteel</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">, Inc.</span>, 758 F.<span><span></span>
					</span>Supp. 1054, 1057<span><span></span>
					</span>(W.D.Pa.1990).<span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>“In short, the evidence must show that the corporation's owners abused the legal separation of a corporation from its owners and used the corporation for illegitimate purposes.” <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Kaplan,<span>
						</span></span>19 F.3d at 1521.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">“[T]he requirements for corporate veil piercing are demanding ones”<span><span></span>
					</span>to be sure,<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Altor</span><span><span></span>
					</span>23 BNA OSHC at<span>
					</span>1461,<span>
					</span>but<span>
					</span>proof of “fraudulent intent” is not an essential component of establishing alter ego liability<span><span></span>
					</span>under federal common law. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Lutyk</span>, 332 F.3d at 194 (“our test does not require proof of actual fraud as a prerequisite for piercing the corporate veil”);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">accord</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">,</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">DeWitt Truck</span>,<span><span></span>
					</span>540 F.2d<span>
					</span>at<span><span></span>
					</span>684 (“proof of plain fraud is not a necessary element in a finding to disregard the corporate entity”), citing<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Anderson v. Abbott</span>, 321 U.S. 349, 362<span><span></span>
					</span>(1944);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Labadie Coal Co. v. Black</span>, 672 F.2d 92, 99 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (“fraud is not a prerequisite in a suit to disregard a corporate fiction”). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">In<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">DeWitt Truck</span>, the Fourth Circuit noted that<span>
					</span>circumstances<span>
					</span>justifying<span><span></span>
					</span>“disregard [of] the corporate fiction ...<span>
					</span>vary according to the circumstances of each case, and every case where the issue is raised is to be regarded as<span>
					</span>sui generis<span><span></span>
					</span>to<span><span></span>
					</span>be decided in accordance with its own underlying facts.” 540 F.2d at 684<span><span></span>
					</span>(internal<span>
					</span>footnotes omitted).</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">Quevedo-Garcia’s Motion for Summary Judgment</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Because<span>
					</span>it is the<span><span></span>
					</span>Secretary’s<span><span></span>
					</span>burden<span>
					</span>to<span><span></span>
					</span>prove<span><span></span>
					</span>alter ego liability,<span>
					</span>for<span><span></span>
					</span>Quevedo-Garcia to prevail on his motion for summary judgment<span>
					</span>on the Secretary’s<span>
					</span>alter ego<span>
					</span>claim,<span><span></span>
					</span>he<span><span></span>
					</span>must<span>
					</span>show<span>
					</span>initially<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">“that there is an absence of evidence to support the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">[Secretary’s]</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>case.” </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Celotex</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 477 U.S.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">at</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>32</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">5</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(1986). </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo-Garcia</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>can satisfy this initial burden by showing<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">that there<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">exists<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">no clear and convincing evidence<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">that would<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">support findings in favor of the Secretary on the material facts.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">See</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Rule 56(c)(1)(B) (one method of demonstrating that a fact cannot be genuinely disputed is by “showing</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "> </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">...</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "> </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact”).</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo-Garcia’s motion for summary judgment fails to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">satisfy the</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">initial burden</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">of showing<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">th</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">at the Secretary will be unable to produce clear and convincing evidence to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">impose</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>alter ego liability.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo-Garcia’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">motion appears grounded<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">at least in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">part on the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">proposition that proof of fraud is essential to imposing alter ego liability.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "> (</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">See</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo-Garcia Mot</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>¶¶</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "> 21–22</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">However, as</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>noted<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">earlier</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>proof of fraudulent intent is not</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">essential to establishing alter ego liability</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>under federal common law</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Lutyk</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,<span>
						</span></span>332 F.3d at 194.<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">In any event</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">in the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Secretary’s cross-motion for summary judgment (which served also as the Secretary’s response to Quevedo-Garcia’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">cross-</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">motion)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, t</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">he</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Secretary pr</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">oduced<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">clear and convincing<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">evidence that would support a finding<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">that Quevedo-Garcia acted with some<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">fraudulent intent</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">:<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo-Garcia falsely told<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">an<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">OSHA official<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">who conducted<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">at least some of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the underlying inspections<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">that the corporate entity performing the work</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">inspected worksites</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>was Frame Q</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; "><a name="ftnref7" href="#ftn7">7</a></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "> B</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ut Quevedo-Garcia knew that this<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">representation was<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">false</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. He had</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">caused<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Frame</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "> </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Q<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">to be<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">dissolved months<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">earlier</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>he knew that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">his own salary and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the employees’ wagers were being paid<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">from the bank accounts of either BB Frame or BM Frame</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">In addition to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">affirmatively misrepresent</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ing</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">employer on site</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>was Frame Q</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo-Garcia</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>also</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">failed to disclose</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">inspecting OSHA officials<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the material fact<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">that the corporate entit</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">y</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>performing the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">construction<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">work w</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">as</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>BB Frame (and/or BM Frame, which<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">had been</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>formed on December 24, 2019</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">The only reasonable inference from<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Garcia</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">’s intentional misrepresentatio</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">n and failures to disclose</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">material fact<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">is that he was<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">attempting to deceive<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">OSHA officials<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">thwart<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">them<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">in accurately identifying the corporate employer that was doing the construction work</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at these<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">work</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">sit</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">es. </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">As d</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">escribed s</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">upra in Facts ¶ </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">6</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Quevedo-Garcia invoked his Fifth Amendment right against compulsory self-incrimination<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">during</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">discovery phase of this litigation.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; "><a name="ftnref8" href="#ftn8">8</a></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">In a non-criminal matter such as this, Quevedo-Garcia’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">allows<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the drawing of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">adverse inferences for his refusal to respond to probative evidence offered against him. </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">See Baxter v.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Palmigiano</span>, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976)<span><span></span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Palmigiano</span>)<span><span></span>
					</span>(“[T]he Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them”);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Rad Servs., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.</span>, 808 F.2d 271, 274 (3d Cir. 1986).<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "> But before any such adverse inference may be drawn, the record must contain independent evidence to support any negative inference. </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">See United States v.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Stelmokas</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">(</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Stelmokas</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 100 F.3d 302, 311 (3d Cir. 1996) (“Thus, as long as there was independent evidence to support the negative inferences beyond the invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination, the inferences could be drawn”);</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Palmigiano</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 425 U.S.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">at</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>318 (observing that the entry of judgment based only on the invocation of the privilege and “without regard to the other evidence” exceeds constitutional bounds)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo-Garcia’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege permits the inference here that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">if he were asked why he falsely<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">represent</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ed</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to OSHA officials that the employer at the construction sites was Frame Q</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">his responses would<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">lend<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">support<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the Secretary’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">alter ego<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">claim</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">I</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">f Quevedo-Garcia’s motion had</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>met<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>initial burden of demonstrating t</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">he absence of clear and convincing evidence<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">to pierce the corporate veil of BB Frame</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">then to defeat Quevedo</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Garcia’s motion the Secretary would have been required to “</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">present affirmative evidence</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">” that would be sufficient to support findings in favor of the Secretary on the material facts. </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Liberty Lobby</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 477 U.S.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">at</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>2</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">57</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(1986)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(“[T]</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">he plaintiff, to survive the defendant’s motion, need only present evidence from which a jury might return a verdict in his favor</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">”).</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">As<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">is next<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">discussed, the Secretary’s opposition to Quevedo-Garcia’s motion<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">(which was combined with his cross-motion for summary judgment)<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">sets forth ample<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">facts to support findings in favor of the Secretary</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>on<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">facts<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">that are material to the</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>alter ego claim</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">But<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">m</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ore significantly, the Secretary’s cross-motion</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>establishes that the Secretary is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on th</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">e claim that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo-Garcia<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">is an employer under an alter ego theory of liability and is</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">personally responsible for BB Frame’s violations and the resulting imposed penalties</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, as is discussed next</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">Secretary’s Motion for Summary Judgment</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">The Secretary’s motion seeks judgment as a matter of law that Quevedo-Garcia<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">was an<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">“employer”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">as defined in section 3(5) of the Act and thus subject to the compliance requirements of section 5(a) and</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">liable for<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">penalties assessed under section 17</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">(a)–(d)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. 29 U.S.C. §§ 652(5), 654(a), 666</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">(a)–(d)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">The Secretary argues that Quevedo-Garcia was an “employer” under two<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">different<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">but somewhat related<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">theories</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>The Secretary argues f</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">irst</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">that Quevedo</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">-Garcia</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">wa</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">s</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>statutory employer of the employees at the construction sites under the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">common law agency<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">analysis set forth in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Darden</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 503 U.S. 318 (1992)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">T</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">he Secretary argues<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">second<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">th</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">at</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo-Garcia was a statutory employer of the employees at the construction sites under a common law alter ego analysis<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">that the Commission<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">recognized in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Altor,<span>
						</span></span>23 BNA OSHC 1458.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">B</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">oth theories would achieve the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Secretary’s objective of imposing personal liability on<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Garcia</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Under<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">alter ego</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>theory, Quevedo-Garcia’s liability<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">under the citations<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">would be coextensive with BB Frame’s</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>liability</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">(</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">which has<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">b</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">een established<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">by final orders<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">in Commission cases 21</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">0635,</span><span><span></span>
					</span>21-0636, 21-0637, 21-0638, and 21-0639)<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">See</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Altor,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">23 BNA 1548 (affirming certain citations and penalties against<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">two<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">corporat</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ions</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>that constitute</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">d</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>a “single employer,”</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">but</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>determining<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">evidence<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">was insufficient<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">support finding that two individuals who operated th</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ose</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>corporations were<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">also<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">employers under an<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">alter ego<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">theory</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">In contrast, Quevedo</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Garcia’s liability under<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Darden</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>would conceptually preclude holding BB Frame liable for the same violations and penalties (all of which have now become final orders against BB Frame).</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; "><a name="ftnref9" href="#ftn9">9</a></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">See, e.g., Froedtert Mem. Lutheran Hosp., Inc.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Froedtert</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">20<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">BNA OSHC</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>1500</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 1508 n. 4</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">No. 97-1839, 2004) (</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">utilizing the common law agency doctrine of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Darden</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">determining that a hospital was the employer of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">temporary housekeepers<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">who worked at the hospital on referral from temporary<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">employment agenc</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ies; expressly deciding<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">not</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to adjudicate an alternative “joint employment” theory of liability in which both the hospital<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">and</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the temporary employment agencies would be deemed to be<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">statutory<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">employers of the temporary housekeepers).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">Statutory Employer Analysis<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">under</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;">Darden</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">In determining wh</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ether an<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">entity<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">has an employment relationship with an<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">identified worker</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">to the exclusion of some other<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">entity</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">“</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the Commission has consistently applied the commo</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">n law agency doctrine”</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">set forth in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Darden</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Freight</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">C</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">ar</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Am</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">.</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">, Inc.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, No. 18-0970, 2021 WL 2311871, at *2 (</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">OSHRC,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Mar. 3, 2021)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">applying<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Darden</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ruling that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the Secretary had failed to prove that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">a parent company was the statutory employer of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">certain<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">workers w</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">hose wages were paid by</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the parent’s</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>subsidiary</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>company</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">);<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">All Star Realty Co.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 24 BNA OSHC 1356, 1358-59 (No.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">12</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">1597,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">2014) (applying<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Darden</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>factors</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>in assessing whether two individuals</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>who were not otherwise identified to be employees of any other entity</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>were<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">statutory<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">employees</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">of the cited company</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">The</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>common law agency doctrine<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">of</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Darden</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">“incorporate[s]<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">traditional agency law criteria for identifying master-servant relationships</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.” 503 U.S. at 319. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">The<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Court in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Darden</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>identified the following<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">factors</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">as</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>be</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ing</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">“relevant to this inquiry”:</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:normal; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; margin-right:96px; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the location of the work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the extent of the hired party's discretion over when and how long to work; the method of payment; the hired party's role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is in business; the provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired party.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:normal; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; margin-right:96px; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Darden</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 503 U.S. at 323-24.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "> The Commission has noted “that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">there is no precision to the weighing of all of these factors</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.” </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Froedtert</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>20<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">BNA OSHC at</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">1508</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">T</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">he evidentiary material presented</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>on the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">cross-</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">motions reflects</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>genuine dispute</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">s</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">material<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">fact<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">respecting whether<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the workers at the construction sites had<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">a master-servant relationship</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>with<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo-Garcia</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to the exclusion of BB Frame</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">For example, t</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">he<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">workers’</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>wages</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>were</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">disbursed<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">from corporate bank accounts. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">(</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Exs</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. 24, 25 & 29 to Kondo Decl.). </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Also,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">c</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">orporate entities obtained</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>liability insurance and worker’s compensation ins</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">urance<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">respecting the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">workers</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">(</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">See</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>insurance documentation</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>filed by Quevedo-Garcia in opposition of Secretary’s motion</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>dated Oct. 28, 2021). </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">While</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span>Quevedo-Garcia was the only<span>
					</span>individual<span><span></span>
					</span>authorized to hire, terminate, direct, train or discipline<span>
					</span>the workers at the various construction sites,<span>
					</span>on<span>
					</span>this record<span>
					</span>there<span>
					</span>are<span><span></span>
					</span>genuine disputes<span><span></span>
					</span>of fact<span>
					</span>about whether he<span>
					</span>exercised<span><span></span>
					</span>that authority as an<span>
					</span>agent of BB Frame<span><span></span>
					</span>or as a<span>
					</span>de facto<span>
					</span>sole proprietor.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Th</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">e whole of the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">evidence<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">is<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">s</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">usceptible of differing inferences on whether</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">it was Quevedo</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Garcia, not BB Frame (or BM Frame), that had a conventional master</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">servant relationship with the workers<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">at the construction sites<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">under<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">a</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Darden</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">analysis</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, thus preclud</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ing</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>granting<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">summary judgment to the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Secretary on this theory</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Ford Motor</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 23 BNA OSHC at 1594</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">Alter Ego<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">Analysis of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;">Altor</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">The</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>preceding</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>conclusion</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">genuine disputes of material fact exist<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">with respect to the Secretary’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Darden</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>theory<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">doe</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">s not<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">preclude<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">reaching<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">a different conclusion<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">on</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Secretary’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">a</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">lter ego<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">theory. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">As previously noted, unlike</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">statutory employer status<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">under<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Darden</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">that</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">identif</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ies</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">a single<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">employer</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">to which an<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">identified<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">employee has a master-servant relationship,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">a</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">lter ego<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">theory</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">involves<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">assigning statutory employer status</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">with respect to an<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">identified<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">employee<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">more than a single employer. Specifically, under alter ego theory</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, statutory employer status<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">with respect to the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">same employee</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">(s)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">is assigned to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">both</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">(1)<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">a corporate employer</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">and</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">(2)<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">an<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">individual or<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">other<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">business organization</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">for whom the corporate employer<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">is</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>an alter ego.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">See, e.g.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Altor</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>23 BNA OSHC</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at 1461</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(recognizing applicability of alter ego theory<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">for</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>hold</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ing</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>individual</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">s</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>liable for a corporate employer’s violations and penalties</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>under the Act</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, but concluding the evidence was insufficient to establish alter ego liability</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>on the individuals</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">). </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">T</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">he Secretary</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">seeks to hold Quevedo-Garcia responsible<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">for th</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">e same<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">violations and penalties</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">that have become final orders against BB Frame</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>in Commission cases 21</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">0635,</span><span><span></span>
					</span>21-0636, 21-0637, 21-0638, and 210639. Assigning<span><span></span>
					</span>statutory<span>
					</span>employer<span>
					</span>status<span><span></span>
					</span>under the Act<span>
					</span>to more than one employer<span>
					</span>as to the same employees<span><span></span>
					</span>is<span><span></span>
					</span>a permissible outcome<span><span></span>
					</span>under<span><span></span>
					</span>alter ego theory<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">For the Secretary to prevail on<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">his</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>cross-motion for summary judgment</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>on alter ego theory</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">, he must make<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">an</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>initial showing that the<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">only<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">reasonable<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">conclusion</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">arising<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">from</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">summary judgment record<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">is<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">that<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">it constitutes “</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">clear and convincing</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>evidence</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">”</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to impose</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>alter ego<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">liability on Quevedo-Garcia</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>If the Secretary succeeds in making this initial showing, Rule 56 does not permit Quevedo-Garcia</span><span><span></span>
					</span>to “rest upon mere<span>
					</span>...<span><span></span>
					</span>denials of his pleading,” but rather he “must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”<span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Liberty Lobby</span>, 477 U.S.<span>
					</span>at<span><span></span>
					</span>248. To make such a showing,<span>
					</span>Quevedo-Garcia<span>
					</span>must<span>
					</span>cite<span>
					</span>“to<span>
					</span>particular parts of<span>
					</span>materials in the record, including<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">...</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">”<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">that<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">demonstrate the existence of<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">a genuine issue for trial</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span> Fed. R. Civ. P.<span>
					</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">56(c)(1)(A);<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">s</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">ee</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>also</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Manua's</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">27 BNA OSHC at 1472-73.<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">Although alter ego<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">liability entails a multifactored<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">analysis</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">,</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">and<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">“every case where the issue is raised<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">is</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "> </span>... sui generis<span><span></span>
					</span>to<span><span></span>
					</span>be decided in accordance with its own underlying facts,”<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Dewitt Truck</span>, 540 F.2d at 684,<span>
					</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">in<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">a proper case<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">summary judgment may be granted to the party<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">that is<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">a</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">lleging alter ego<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">liability</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">. </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">See</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Quickstuff</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">, LLC</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, No. CV 14-6105, 2016 WL 7231605, at *9 (D.N.J. Dec. 14, 2016)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(granting summary judgment to the plaintiff on its claim to pierce corporate veil of an LLC). </span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">An analysis of the record on summary judgment under the two</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">pronged analysis for alter ego liability follows. </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; "><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;">First Prong</span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;"><span><span></span>
						</span>of Alter Ego Analysis</span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;">:<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;"><br/></span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;">Eight<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;">Factors Concerning<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;">the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;">Existence of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;">a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;">Separate Corporate Personality</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Gross<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Undercapitalization</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Underc</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">apitaliz</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ation of a corporate entity<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">is<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">a factor in alter ego analysis</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">to prevent shareholders from retaining the profits of the business “without having any real capital in the undertaking” and therefore risking nothing of their own.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">DeWitt Truck</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>540 F.2d<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">at</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>689</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">;</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">see also Laborers’ Pension Fund v. Lay-Com, Inc.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 580 F.3d 602, 612 (7th Cir. 2009) (“</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">[I]</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">f the shareholders do not invest enough equity, such that the corporation is undercapitalized, there is no basis for rewarding them by limiting their liability, and, in fact, doing so would only encourage risky behavior”).</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Assessing the adequacy of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">capitalization<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">generally involves looking to</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">initial capitalization at the time of organization, but “[s]</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ubsequent</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>capitalization may also be relevant</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">[the]</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>inquiry,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">” in that “</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">evidence of inadequate subsequent capitalization may be indicative of initial undercapitalization</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">”</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Matter of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Multiponics</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">, Inc.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 622 F.2d 709, 71</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">7</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(5</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">th</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Cir. 1980)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Also</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">“</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">proof of subsequent undercapitalization may be further proof of inequitable conduct, such as actions of gross mismanagement,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">self interest</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, and the like</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.” </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">at 718.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">The</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>only direct evidence of BB Frame’s initial capitalization is</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>contained in</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>its 2019 federal tax return<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">which states that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the company had<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">a</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">balance sheet<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">liability<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">of $27,500<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">for “capital stock” at both the beginning and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">end of the tax year. (Ex. 7 to Kondo Decl.). </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo-Garcia certified in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">BB Frame’s certificate of dissolution filed with the state of New Jersey in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">November 2020 that “all assets have been discarded and have been applied to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">creditors or distributed to its members</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">”</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; "><a name="ftnref10" href="#ftn10">10</a></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">(Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">10</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to Kondo Decl.)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">There is no<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">direct<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">evidence respecting<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">level of capital</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">ization</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">that is appropriate<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">for a co</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">mpany of BB Frame’s size</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">, business activity,</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">and location</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">. </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Cf.</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Altor</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 23 BNA OSHC at<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">1462 (noting “</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">there is no evidence as to the amount of capital required for a similarly sized company in the same industry</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">”</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>as the<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">subject<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">corporation</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">s</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">);<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Lutyk</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">332 F.3d at<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">1</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">98</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">noting the absence of evidence respecting the amount of capital necessary to engage in the corporate activity involved). </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Thus, w</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ith respect to the “gross undercapitalization” factor, t</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">he record on the motion for summary judgment does not<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">support alter ego liability</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; "><a name="ftnref11" href="#ftn11">11</a></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Cf.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Lutyk</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">332 F.3d at<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">196–</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">98 (imposing alter ego liability</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>even though</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the evidence<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">did not establish<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">gross</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">undercapitaliz</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ation)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:8px; text-align:center; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">;</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><br/></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Absence of</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Corporate Records</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">BB Frame held no meetings of members</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">so of course there are<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">no<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">corporate records<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">that would evidence such meetings</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, such</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>as</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">minutes or corporate resolutions</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. (</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Ex</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">s</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. 31</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>& 32</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to Kondo Decl.).</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "> BB Frame had no<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">operating agreement</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">which is<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">equivalent of corporate<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">by-laws</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>for an LLC</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. (Ex. 32 to Kondo Decl.).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">According to Quevedo</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Garcia,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">BB Fram</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">e’s contracts with<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">other contractors<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">or</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>suppliers</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>were mostly<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">oral contracts<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">grounded in</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>“longtime relationship between the parties</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">” (Ex. 31 to Kondo Decl.). </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo-Garcia acknowledges that “there is evidence of a failure to observe corporate formalities,” though he contends that there is no evidence that this failure was “malicious” or involved an “effort to defraud OSHA or the Secretary.” (Quevedo-Garcia Mot</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>8).</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">A</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ccepting as true for purposes of analysis that there was<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">no<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">malicious or fraudulent intent attached to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">BB</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "> </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Frame’s</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>failure to observe corporate formalities, the absence of such formalities<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">nevertheless<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">bears on whether Quevedo-Garcia, as<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the sole officer of BB Frame and its<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">majority owner</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, took measures for BB Frame “to maintain a separate corporate identity,” which<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">is</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the crux of the first prong of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">alter ego</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">analysis. </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Labadie Coal Co. v. Black</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 672 F.2d<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">at<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">9</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">7 (observing that “</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the formalities are themselves an excellent litmus of the extent to which the individuals involved actually view the corporation as a separate being</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">”)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">;<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Altor</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 23 BNA OSHC at 1461 (noting that the first prong of alter ego analysis<span>
						</span></span>pertains to determining whether “a separate corporate personality no longer exists”).<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">The “</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">disregard of corporate formalities or failure to maintain corporate records</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">” may justify<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">piercing the corporate veil</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>“</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">if it is also shown that a corporation's affairs and personnel were manipulated to such an extent that it became nothing more than a sham used to disguise the alter ego's use of its assets for his own benefit</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">”</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Kaplan</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 19 F.3d<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">at</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>1521</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">;</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">b</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">ut<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">cf.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Zubik</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 384 F.2d<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">at</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>271<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">n. 4 (stating the “lack of formalities in a closely-held corporation has often not been found to have much consequence”), cited by the Commission in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Altor</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 23 BNA OSHC at 1462, n. 10</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(noting that the “Third Circuit has afforded varying weight to a closely held company’s failure to observe corporate formalities”).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">One<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">prominent<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">instance of a</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>combined failure to observe corporate formalities<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">and</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">maintain corporate records is that BB Frame adopted no resolution<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">authorizing the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">company to</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>transfer</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Q</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "> </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Properties (</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">another<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">LLC</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">of which<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo-Garcia and his sister<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">were the only members)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>any of the five checks total</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ing</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>$84,600<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">that were issued<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">over<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">a</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>1</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">2</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">-</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">month</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>period<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">in 2018 and 2019. (Ex. 33 to Kondo Decl.)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">A reasonable inference from such substantial transfer of funds from one<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">closely-held</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>company to another is that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the transfers were not in furtherance of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the transferring company’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">corporate purpose</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Quevedo-Garcia has not argued that the record on the motion permits any other reasonable inference, and he has certainly not presented any evidentiary material that would support an<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">opposing<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">inference. Having presented no such evidence</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>as R</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ule<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">56 requires</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>that he</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>do</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to address the Secretary’s evidence supporting that inference</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">that reasonable inference is</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>deemed undisputed for purposes of the motion pursuant to Rule 56(e)(2). </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Moreover,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo-Garcia</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">declared refusal<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">based on his Fifth Amendment privilege<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">to respond to questions<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">p</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ermits the adverse inference that his response</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">s</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to questions regarding these<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">cash<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">transfers</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>from BB Frame</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to Q Properties would support the Secretary’s claim for alter ego liability. </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Stelmokas</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 100 F.3d<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">at</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>311</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Non-functioning of Other Officers and Directors<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">The “non-functioning of other officers and directors” factor does not weigh in support of alter ego liability. Although Quevedo</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Garcia’s sister was 30% owner of BB Frame, she had no legal duty to have any role in the operations of the company</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>T</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">he record on summary judgment reflects that only Quevedo</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Garcia, as BB Frame’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">president and its<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">only officer, had operational or managerial r</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">esponsibilities</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. (Ex. 31 to Kondo Decl.).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; text-indent:.152cm; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Non-payment of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Dividends</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">As to the “non-payment of dividends” factor,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">BB Frame<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">has<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">made no cash distributions<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">of profits<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">(which</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>is an<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">LLC</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">’s</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>equivalent of a corporate dividend)<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">to either of its two members.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "> (Ex. 31 to Kondo Decl.).</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">The absence of any distribution of profits (i.e., dividends)<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">is</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>not by<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">it</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">sel</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">f</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">generally<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">accorded much weight<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">for piercing the corporate veil of a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">closely</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">-</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">held</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>company. </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Lutyk</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 332 F.3d at 196 (noting that</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>non-payment of dividends by a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">closely-held</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>corporation<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">is “</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">not unusual, and not a strong factor in favor of piercing the corporate veil of such a company</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">”);<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">accord</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Altor</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 23 BNA OSHC at 1462</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">;<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">but cf.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Lutyk</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 3332 F.3d at 196 (</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">noting</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">that</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>“</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">many jurisdictions actually hold that the payment of dividends at a time when a corporation is insolvent favors piercing the corporate veil</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">”</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">).</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">While BB Frame made no cash distributions to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">its</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>two members</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, BB Frame paid Quevedo</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Garcia a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">weekly<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">salary</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of $2,500<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">from<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">June 8,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">2018</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">through December 20, 2019</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(for a total of $202,500 over that period)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">After that</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, from January 10,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">2020</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to August 8, 2020,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Garcia<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">receiv</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ed</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">a weekly salary of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">$2,500<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">that was<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">disbursed</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>from<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">BM Frame</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">’s checking account</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. BB Frame’s other member, Magda Quevedo-Garcia, received no<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">salary or<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">wages from BB Frame,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">but she</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>did receive<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">$17,100 in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">wages from BM Frame</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>over 19 weeks in 2020</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">(</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Exs</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. 7</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">25<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">& 2</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">7</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to Kondo Decl.)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">The “</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">failure to pay dividends while paying substantial sums, whether by way of salary or otherwise, to the dominant stockholder, all fitting into a picture of basic unfairness,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">” may be<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">appropriately<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">considered in determining whether to</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>impos</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">e</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>individual liability under<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">an alter ego theory. </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">DeWitt Truck</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>540 F.2d<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">at</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>687</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Here, the</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">re is no<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">evidence that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Garcia’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">$2,500 weekly salary was<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">unreasonable<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">for the president of a company of BB Frame’s size</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, business activity, and location</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "> There<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">being<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">no independent evidence in the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">summary judgment<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">record indicat</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ing</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>salary</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to be unreasonable</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">no adverse inference<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">is made based on<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Garcia’s</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">refus</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ing</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to be deposed and subject to questioning respecting the reasonableness of his salary</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Stelmokas</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 100 F.3d at 311.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Siphoning of Funds</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">;</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><br/></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Insolvency</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Default style_Default " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">In its 2019 federal tax return, BB Frame reported gross receipts of $388,553 and a total income of $297,087. After deductions from this<span><span></span>
					</span>total income figure<span>
					</span>(which included<span>
					</span>a deduction of<span>
					</span>$127,500 in compensation to Quevedo-Garcia)<span><span></span>
					</span>the tax return reflected an ordinary loss of $1,181 for the year. (Ex. 7 to Kondo Decl.). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Default style_Default " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">BB Frame’s business checking account had a balance of over $20,000 on November 1, 2019. But by the end of that month the account had a negative balance. The account continued to<span>
					</span>maintain a negative balance in varying amounts until the bank forced the account closed in March 2020, when the account had a negative balance of $1,830.77. (Ex. 28 to Kondo Decl.). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Default style_Default " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">The first of the underlying inspections here was opened in early December 2019, before Quevedo-Garcia formed BM Frame, but at a time when BB Frame had no money in its bank account.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>Over<span><span></span>
					</span>the duration of the five underlying inspections here, BB Frame was a shell of a company, with no assets of significant value other than trucks (at least one of which remained registered to Frame Q, and all of which continued to display Frame Q’s logo).<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Default style_Default " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">BB Frame’s bank account had become depleted in November 2019 in part because BB Frame<span><span></span>
					</span>had<span><span></span>
					</span>transferred<span>
					</span>$84,600 to Q Properties between August 2018 and July 2019 (as previously<span><span></span>
					</span>addressed<span><span></span>
					</span>in the discussion pertaining to the failure to observe corporate formalities).<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Default style_Default " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">After forming BM Frame in<span>
					</span>late<span>
					</span>December 2019,<span>
					</span>Quevedo-Garcia<span>
					</span>began financing<span>
					</span>the framing business<span>
					</span>entirely<span>
					</span>using<span><span></span>
					</span>BM Frame’s bank account.<span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref12" href="#ftn12">12</a></span> (Exs. 27 & 28 to Kondo Decl.).<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>In the month of January 2020, there were eleven deposits made into BM Frame’s account totaling $162,600 and 97 withdrawal transactions totaling $135,318. (Exs. 27 & 30 to Kondo Decl.). (The summary judgment record does not reflect the sources<span><span></span>
					</span>of any of the deposited funds.)<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Default style_Default " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">While there is no 2020 tax return in the record for BB Frame, there is one for BM Frame<span><span></span>
					</span>for that tax year. In tax year 2020, BM Frame reported gross receipts of $426,451, total income of $235,066, and ordinary business income of $12,464. (Ex. 11 to Kondo Decl.). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Default style_Default " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">BB Frame’s insolvency throughout the period of the<span><span></span>
					</span>five underlying<span><span></span>
					</span>inspections was a consequence of Quevedo-Garcia’s transfer of the financing of framing operations from BB Frame’s bank account to BM Frame’s bank account. There is no evidence<span>
					</span>in the summary judgment record<span>
					</span>that<span><span></span>
					</span>BM Frame<span><span></span>
					</span>was ever<span>
					</span>insolvent. It is reasonably inferable that BM Frame’s solvency and profitable operations in 2020 were<span>
					</span>achieved<span>
					</span>at the expense of<span>
					</span>the solvency of<span>
					</span>BB Frame, which Quevedo-Garcia choreographed<span>
					</span>to insolvency in 2019. Quevedo-Garcia has pointed to no affirmative evidence<span>
					</span>to<span>
					</span>controvert this reasonable inference.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Default style_Default " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">After Quevedo-Garcia began using BM Frame’s<span>
					</span>bank<span>
					</span>account to<span>
					</span>conduct<span>
					</span>BB Frame’s framing business, he began causing<span><span></span>
					</span>money from<span>
					</span>BM Frame’s bank account<span><span></span>
					</span>to<span>
					</span>be<span>
					</span>disbursed<span><span></span>
					</span>to other family-owned companies. The record on the motion for summary judgment is devoid of evidence that these payments were in furtherance of the corporate<span>
					</span>operations of either BB Frame or BM Frame. Given the absence of any affirmative evidence offered by Quevedo-Garcia in opposition to the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment to indicate<span>
					</span>that these disbursements were for a legitimate corporate purpose, the only reasonable inference to draw from the evidence is that the<span>
					</span>disbursements<span><span></span>
					</span>did not<span><span></span>
					</span>benefit BB Frame. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2). Moreover,<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Quevedo-Garcia</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">’s</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege and</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>his</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>declared refusal to respond to questions that would pertain to such<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">transfers of funds</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>permi</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ts</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>t</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">he adverse inference<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">that the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">purposes of those cash</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>transfers would support the Secretary’s alter ego claim</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Stelmokas</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 100 F.3d<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">at</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>311</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Corporate Form a Mere Façade</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><br/></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">for Operations of Quevedo-Garcia<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">While e</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">vidence</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>that a company<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">is</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>a mere façade for the operations of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">a</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>dominant member is not essential to piercing the</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>company’s</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>corporate veil</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Lutyk</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">332 F.3d at 194</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, there is<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">abundant evidence here</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">indicat</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ing exactly that</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">As<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">previously described</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>in connection with other factors, b</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">efore<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">depleting</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>BB Frame’s bank account</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">in November 2019, Quevedo</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Garcia caused BB Frame</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and BM Frame</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to transfer cash to other family businesses for no discernable corporate purpose benefiting BB Frame. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">The<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">$84,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">6</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">00<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">transferred<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">from BB Frame<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">to Q Properties is the most prominent example</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Th</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">at transfer of monies</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>is<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">compelling</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>evidence that</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>BB Frame was not a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">legal entity<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">separate from Quevedo-Garcia</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>but rather<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">that Quevedo-Garcia operated<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">BB Frame</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">as if<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">it<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">were</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>an interchangeable extension of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">himself,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">manipulat</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ing</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">BB Frame</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">for his own purposes and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">not for the company’s benefit.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo-Garcia’s</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>transition</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ing the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">financing<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">framing operations from<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">BB Frame</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">’s bank account</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to BM Frame</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">’s bank account</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">in early 2020</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, after OSHA had begun to inspect BB Frame worksites,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">echoed the transition<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Garcia<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">had<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">implemented<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">in 2018<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">when</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, after many of the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">proposed<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">penalties against Frame Q had become final orders,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>he</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>transition</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ed</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">framing business from Frame Q to BB Frame</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">even though all the while<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">he continued<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">hold out the name<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">“</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Frame Q</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">” as the company involved<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">in its construction projects</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. He went<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">as far as</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">falsely<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">tell an<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">OSHA inspector</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>during the first of the five underlying inspections here<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">that</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Frame Q was the corporate entity performing the framing work at the inspected site</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo-Garcia<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">argues</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>that “</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Frame Q closed its business some years ago, after it became fundamental</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ly<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">insolvent due to a variety of contracts, debts, lease agreements and monies</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">owed to OSHA for fines and penalties.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">” (Quevedo-Garcia<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Mot.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>5). </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">The only evidence of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">any<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">such debt<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">(other than the OSHA penalties)<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">is Frame Q’s 2018 tax return that reflected a balance sheet liability<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">for accounts payable<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">at the end of the tax year<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">in the amount<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">$170,807</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">However, t</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">hat figure</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">was<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">44%<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">less than</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">accounts payable lia</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">bility</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of $303,318</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">stated to have existed twelve months<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">earlier</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">at</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">beginning of that tax year. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Th</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">e 2018 tax return’s</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">“</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">a</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ccounts payable”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">entry<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">at the end of the tax year<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">was the only significant balance sheet liability reflected on the return<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">(</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">other than a $25,000 liability for capital stock</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, which Frame Q would have owed to Quevedo</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Garcia as the sole owner)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Frame Q’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">balance sheet<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">liability for accounts payable<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">at the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">end</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of 2018<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">represented 18% of its indebtedness for</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">combined figures for<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">accounts payable and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">unpaid OSHA penalties</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. In view of Frame Q’s apparent success in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">reducing by 44%<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">its<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">balance sheet<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">liability for accounts payable<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">between January 1 and December 31,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>2018</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>after</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">having</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>collect</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ed</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>gross receipts of $528,895 that year,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Frame Q</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>has not shown that its</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">claimed<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">insolvency was<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">substantially<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the result of any debt except the debt<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">result</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ed</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>from the imposed<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">OSHA<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">penalties. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo-Garcia having failed to properly address the Secretary’s assertion of fact, there</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">exists</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>no genuine dispute of material fact that Quevedo-Garcia caused Frame Q to be dissolved and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">its<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">framing business transferred to BB Frame to avoid<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">collection of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Frame<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Q’s</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">liability for the imposed penalties. </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e);<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Paystaffing</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">, LLC</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, No. 16-CV-1128-CCC-JBC, 2017 WL 773877, at *6 (D.N.J. Feb. 28, 2017)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(finding that allegations that the business of one company was transferred another company,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">with<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">both<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">companies being<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">owned by the same individual,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">essentially alleges that the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">companies were merely a façade for the operations of that individual).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">The same conclusion holds with respect to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo-Garcia’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">transition</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ing</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the financing of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">BB Frame’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">framing operations</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">from</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>BB Frame’s bank account to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">BM Frame</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">’s bank account</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">a process that</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>commenced<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">after the first underlying inspection here w</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">as</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">opened</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">While Quevedo</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Garcia argues that BB</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "> </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Frame was “closed due to circumstances which were wholly unrelated to OSHA and/or its citations and ultimate fines,”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">(Quevedo-Garcia Mot</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>6),<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">he</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>p</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">oints to no<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">evidence that BB</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "> </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Frame was closed for any reason</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>other than the underlying OSHA inspections and resulting<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">citations and substantial<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">proposed penalties</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Other than the liability for capital stock (which BB Frame owed to Quevedo-Garcia and his sister), B</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">B Frame’s 2019 tax return reflected balance sheet liabilities<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">at the end of the tax year</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of about $22,000</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">against</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>gross receipts of $388,553<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">out of which Quevedo-Garcia had been paid a salary of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">$127,500. (Ex. 7 to Kondo Decl.). The information on the tax return does not<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">depict a</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>company in financial distress as of the end of the tax year 2019,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">even though by that time</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Quevedo-Garcia<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">had depleted<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">BB Frame’s bank account</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>in apparent preparation for<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">financ</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ing</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>framing operations</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>entirely from<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">BM Frame’s newly opened bank account.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo-Garcia</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">’s argument<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">that BB Frame was “closed due to circumstances which were wholly unrelated to OSHA and/or its citations and ultimate fines”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">might be interpreted to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">insinuate<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">obliquely<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">that the criminal charges filed against him in December 2019</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>were a factor in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>decision to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">close</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>BB Frame (though the company was not dissolved until almost one year later)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(Quevedo-Garcia Mot</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>6)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">There is no evidence presented to support any such argument, and the argument would be inconsistent with<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">BM Frame</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>having operated<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">profitabl</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">y</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>in 2020, as reflected by its 2020 tax return. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">The only reasonable inference f</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">rom</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the evidence presented by the Secretary in support his cross-motion for summary judgment was that Quevedo</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Garcia<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">began financing<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">BB Frame’s business operations<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">with</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>BM Frame</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">’s resources</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">to</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>avoid having to pay penalties that he reasonably expected<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">would<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">be proposed against BB Frame arising out of the underlying inspections here</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, and that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo-Garcia</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">later<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">caused BB Frame to be dissolved for t</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">hat</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>same reason</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo-Garcia</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">has</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>not</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>address</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ed</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the Secretary’s assertion</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">s</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of th</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ese</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>fact</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">s</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>with evidence tending to show the contrary,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">and so<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">th</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ose</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>fact</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">s</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">are</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>considered undisputed for purposes of the cross-motions for summary judgment. </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">See</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">(2)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "> Moreover,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo-Garcia’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">declared refusal to respond to questions that would be posed to him regarding th</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">e</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>trans</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ition</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ing</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of the framing business among the various corporate entities<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">permits the adverse inference that his responses to questions regarding th</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">o</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">se<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">transitions<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">would support the Secretary’s claim for alter ego liability. </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Stelmokas</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 100 F.3d<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">at</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>311</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; "><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;">Second Prong</span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;"><span><span></span>
						</span>of Alter Ego Analysis</span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;">:<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;">An<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;">Element</span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;"><span><span></span>
						</span>of Injustice –</span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;"><br/></span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;">Circumvent</span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;">i</span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;">on of</span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;"><span><span></span>
						</span>Statute</span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;">/</span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;">Avoidance of Clear Legislative Purpose</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">The facts<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">about</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>which there is no genuine dispute show in clear and convincing fashion that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">it<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">was</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the decisions, actions, and inactions of Quevedo-Garcia that resulted in Frame Q<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">being determined to have<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">committed<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">forty</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>violations of construction industry standards</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>in thirteen inspections over the course of about 66 months from 2013 to 2018. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Seven</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">teen of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">those<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">forty</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>violat</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">io</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ns were<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">classified as repeated violations and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">two</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">were<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">classified as willful violations. As the only<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">individual<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">with</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>authority to<span>
						</span></span>direct, train or discipline employees of Frame Q (Ex. 31 to Kondo Decl.), the requisite state of mind to support the willful classifications was necessarily that of Quevedo-Garcia, whose state of mind was<span><span></span>
					</span>imputed to Frame Q.<span>
					</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Kaspar</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Wire Works, Inc.</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">,</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">18 BNA OSHC 2178, 2181 (No. 90-2775, 2000)</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">(</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">"The hallmark of a willful violation is the employer's state of mind at the time of the violation"</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">)</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">aff'd</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 268 F.3d 1123 (D.C. Cir. 2001)</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">;<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Cont'l Roof Sys., Inc.</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 18<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">BNA OSHC<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">1070</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 1071</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">No. 95-1716</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 1997)</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(“</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">Where the requisite state of mind is manifested through the actions of supervisory employees, it is imputed to the employer to the same extent as would be a supervisor's knowledge of violative conditions</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">”)</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">During inspections of Frame Q construction sites, Quevedo-Garcia<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">acknowledged<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">understanding<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">th</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">at</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">Frame Q employees were not complying with fall protection requirements</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">,</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">and he stated expressly<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">that<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">he<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">had decided<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">not<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">to<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">require the<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">employees to implement<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">compliant fall protection measures because he did not regard<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">such measures<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">to be worth the expense. (</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">Sydenstricker</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Decl.).</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; "><a name="ftnref13" href="#ftn13">13</a></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">In April 2017<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo-Garcia caused BB Frame to be created ten days after OSHA opened</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">the twelfth of the thirteen inspections of Frame Q<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">construction<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">sites</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(inspection</span><span style="font-size:11.5pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11.5pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>1264265)</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">. </span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">In the summer of 2018, a</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">fter<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">most of the penalties<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">proposed</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>against Frame Q had become final orders</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">,</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Quevedo</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">Garcia began to<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">transfer<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">money from<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">Frame Q</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">’s bank account to<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">BB Frame</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">’s bank account</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">,</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">he<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">started using<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">BB Frame’s bank account</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>exclusively to pay employee wages</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">his own weekly salary of $2,500</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">Ex</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">s</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">21 &<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">25 to Kondo Decl.). </span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">I</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">n January 2019, OSHA issued<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">the last of<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">Frame Q’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">thirteen<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">citation</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">s</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">propos</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">ing</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>penalties of<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">$261,451.<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">The next month,<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">in<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">February 2019,<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">the government brought a c</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">ivil action against<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">Frame Q</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>in federal district court</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">to collect<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">some of the<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">unpaid penalties</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>that had become final orders</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">. The next month,</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>in March 2019,</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Quevedo</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">Garcia<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">applied</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>for a home improvement contractor license for BB Frame</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">, and the<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">month after that<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">he formally dissolved<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">Frame Q</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">, thereby successfully<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">thwarting the collection action<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">that had been filed against<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">Frame Q</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">just two months earlier</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">After dissolving Frame Q and rendering<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">unpaid penalties<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">of $772,809 essentially uncollectable, Quevedo-Garcia continued<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">operating<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the framing business that Frame Q had<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">conducted</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>since 2013</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">through BB Frame</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">H</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">e operated<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">BB Frame’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">framing<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">business<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">precisely<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the same fashion that he<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">had<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">operated Frame Q’s business</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">––</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">by knowingly allowing</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>or instructing</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>BB Frame employees</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(who<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">had formerly been</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Frame Q employees</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>[see<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Exs</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. 24 & 25 to Kondo Decl.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">]</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "> </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>work without<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">comply</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ing</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>with<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">applicable<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">workplace safety standards</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. The five inspections<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">here of</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>BB Frame construction sites<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">that were conducted<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">over about a three-month period from December 2019 t</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">hrough February 2020</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">resulted<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">BB Frame<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ultimately<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">being determined to have<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">committed 33 violatio</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ns of construction industry standards,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">with<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">t</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">welve</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">violations<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">classified as repeated</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and eight classified as willful</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">resulting in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">penalties<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">of<span>
						</span></span>$2,004,225<span>
					</span>that later became<span>
					</span>final orders<span>
					</span>against BB Frame<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">As the only person with authority to<span>
						</span></span>direct, train or discipline employees of<span>
					</span>BB<span>
					</span>Frame,<span><span></span>
					</span>the requisite state of mind to support the willful classifications<span><span></span>
					</span>against BB Frame<span><span></span>
					</span>was necessarily Quevedo-Garcia’s state of mind,<span>
					</span>which<span>
					</span>was imputed to<span>
					</span>BB<span>
					</span>Frame. (Ex. 31 to Kondo Decl.). QuevedoGarcia caused BB Frame to be dissolved<span>
					</span>prior to those<span><span></span>
					</span>violations and penalties becoming final orders<span><span></span>
					</span>against BB Frame in August 2021, thus effectively making<span><span></span>
					</span>any<span>
					</span>portion<span>
					</span>of<span>
					</span>those penalties uncollectable from<span>
					</span>the now dissolved<span>
					</span>BB Frame. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">The only reasonable inference from Quevedo-Garcia’s<span><span></span>
					</span>actions in<span>
					</span>forming,<span>
					</span>operating, and dissolving<span><span></span>
					</span>BB Frame,<span>
					</span>is that he consciously used<span>
					</span>its<span><span></span>
					</span>corporate form to evade<span>
					</span>personal responsibility and<span>
					</span>liability for<span>
					</span>chronic<span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>intentional<span>
					</span>violations of applicable workplace safety standards.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>Although QuevedoGarcia argues that the corporate<span>
					</span>transitions and<span>
					</span>maneuverings were “wholly unrelated to OSHA,” he has presented no evidentiary material that would controvert this reasonable inference, and so that inference is considered undisputed for purposes of the cross-motions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2).<span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>The whole of the evidence on the cross-motions supporting<span><span></span>
					</span>this<span>
					</span>finding<span><span></span>
					</span>is clear and convincing<span><span></span>
					</span>evidence, which is to say that it highly probable that this<span>
					</span>finding<span>
					</span>is true. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Araujo</span>, 708 F.3d at 159 (“clear and convincing<span><span></span>
					</span>evidence” is such evidence as shows that “the truth” of the facts claimed is “highly<span><span></span>
					</span>probable”). Moreover,<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo-Garcia’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">declared<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">refusal to respond to questions<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">that would pertain to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">his formation, operation, and dissolution of</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>BB Frame permits the adverse inference that his responses would lend support to the Secretary’s alter ego claim. </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Stelmokas</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 100 F.3d<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">at</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>311</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Among the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">means<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">that</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the Act<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">advances<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Congress’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">declared<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">“</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">purpose<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">and policy ... to</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>assur</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">e<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>working condition</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">s</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">” is by “providing an effective enforcement program.” 29 U.S.C. §</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "> </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">651(b)(10).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Penalties for violations are a key part of that enforcement program</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, and “</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">are meant to inflict pocket-book deterrence.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">” </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Kaspar</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Wire Works, Inc. v. Sec'y of Lab</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">or</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 268 F.3d 1123, 1132 (D.C. Cir. 2001)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">“The purpose of a penalty is to achieve a safe workplace, and penalty assessments, if they are not to become simply another cost of doing business, are keyed to the amount an employer appears to require before it will comply.” </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Quality Stamping Prods. Co.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 16 BNA OSHC 1927, 1930 (No. 91-414, 1994),<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">citing<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">D & S Grading Co. v. Sec</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">’</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">y</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of Labor</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 899 F.2d 1145 (11th Cir.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">1990). </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Here,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Quevedo-Garcia obdurate</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ly</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>refus</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ed</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">enable and instruct</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>employees of</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>BB Frame<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">comply with applicable<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">workplace<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">safety standards</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">The</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">increased<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">frequen</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">cy of inspections</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">likelihood of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">progressively more severe sanctions<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">were<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ineffective<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">induc</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ing</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">him to</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>enable and instruct</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">BB Frame<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">employees<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">comply with applicable standards. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Instead of bringing the compan</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">y</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">into compliance, Quevedo</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Garcia<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">simply<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">continued operat</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ing<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">BB Frame just as he had operated Frame Q, by<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">consciously and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">routinely<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">flout</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ing</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">applicable standards</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">This<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">disregard of mandatory standards, which are designed to provide workers</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>safe and healthful working condition</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">s,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">likely<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">gave<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">BB Frame</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">an</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>unfair</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>competitive advantage over<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">construction<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">employers</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">comply with<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">those<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">standards</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">State Sheet Metal Co., Inc.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 16 BNA OSHC 1155, 116</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">1</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(No. 90-1620, 1993) (consolidated)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">“A primary goal of the Act was to eliminate any competitive disadvantage that a safety-conscious employer might suffer by requiring that every employer comply with the applicable OSHA standards”</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">);<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">accord</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Walker Towing Corp.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 14<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">BNA OSHC 2072</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 2079</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>n. 11</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">No. 87</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">1359, 1991</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo-Garcia had<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">previously<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">succeeded in avoiding<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">having<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Frame Q pay</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>almost</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">all the penalties that</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>had been assessed against it. His</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>creation of BM Frame<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">just weeks<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">after OSHA began inspecting BB Frame construction sites<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">in December 2019</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">appears to have been calculated<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">maneuver<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">continu</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">e</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>BB Frame’s business through BM Frame<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">(</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">but while still<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">“doing business as” BB Frame) and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">continue<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">flouting<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">applicable standards</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">w</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">hile insulating himself from<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">personal</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">liability<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">for the resulting violations</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and penalties</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo-Garcia’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege and his declared refusal to respond to questions that would pertain to reasons for creating BM Frame and transferring the funding of framing operations from</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>BB</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "> </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Frame’s bank account to</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>BM Frame’s bank account permits the adverse inference that his responses to such questions would support the Secretary’s alter ego claim. </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Stelmokas</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 100 F.3d<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">at</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>311</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo-Garcia</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">’s d</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">omination of</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>companies<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">serially flout</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ed</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>applicable workplace standards and</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">his decisions to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">dissolve</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>two of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">th</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">ose</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>companies to</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>avoid</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>collection of any portion of the over $2.7 million in imposed unpaid penalties<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">circumvents the OSH Act and defeats its clear legislative purpose of assuring safe and healthful working conditions</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>for workers. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">The only reasonable<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">inference<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">on the cross-motions for summary judgment is that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">evidence<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">is clear and convincing that</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo-Garcia<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">dominated BB Frame and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">abused<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">its</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>corporate form to circumvent the OSH Act and to avoid the Act’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">stated</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>legislative purpose</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and policy</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. D</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">isregard of BB Frame’s corporate form<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">to hold Quevedo-Garcia personally liable for the company’s violations and</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>resulting</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>penalties<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">is necessary to prevent</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">continued<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">or renewed<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">circumvention of the OSH Act and avoidance of the Act’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">expressed</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>legislative purpose</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and policy</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; "><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;">Clear and Convincing Evidence<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;">Supports</span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;"><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;">Piercing</span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;"><span><span></span>
						</span>Corporate Veil</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">The evidence considered on the cross-motions constitutes clear and convincing evidence that Quevedo-Garcia abused BB</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "> </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">Frame’s corporate form to circumvent the OSH Act and defeat its expressed legislative purpose and policy</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">. </span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">The Secretary’s motion for summary judgment thus presents clear and convincing evidence to support piercing the corporate veil of BB Frame</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">There is no reasonable view of the evidence that supports a contrary conclusion. </span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">Quevedo-Garcia has not addressed the Secretary’s properly supported motion by producing or citing to other materials in the record (such as documents, depositions, interrogatory answers, affidavits, and the like as described<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">in<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">)</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "> </span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">)</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>that indicates the contrary.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">The</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Secretary is entitled to judgment as a matter of law</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>pursuant to Rule 56(a) & 56(e)(3)</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>that Quevedo-Garcia</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>was a statutory employer of the BB Frame employees so that he</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">is</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>personally responsible</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and liable</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>for the violations alleged in the underlying citations and<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">the<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; ">corresponding proposed penalties.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:12px; text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">ORDER</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">The foregoing decision constitutes findings of fact and conclusions of law<span><span></span>
					</span>on all material issues of fact, law, and discretion<span><span></span>
					</span>in accordance with Commission Rule 90(a)(1). 29 C.F.R. § 2200.90(a)(1).<span style="font-family:Arial; font-family:Times New Roman; font-family:Arial; ">
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">The Respondent, Juan G.<span>
					</span>Quevedo-Garcia,<span><span></span>
					</span>having expressly stipulated to “waive[]<span><span></span>
					</span>any defense to the Citations and Notifications of Penalty other than the defense that<span>
					</span>[he]<span>
					</span>should not be held liable for the Citations and Notifications of Penalty in his individual capacity,”<span><span></span>
					</span>and having now been adjudicated to be personally liable for those citations and penalties, it is<span>
					</span>ORDERED<span><span></span>
					</span>as follows:</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">1.<span>
					</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; text-decoration:underline ;">Case 20-1029</span>. The<span><span></span>
					</span>Citation<span>
					</span>and Notification of Penalty<span>
					</span>issued to<span>
					</span>Quevedo-Garcia<span><span></span>
					</span>on<span>
					</span>June 2,<span>
					</span>2020<span><span></span>
					</span>arising out of<span>
					</span>inspection number<span>
					</span>1450621<span><span></span>
					</span>is AFFIRMED in its entirety and<span>
					</span>the proposed<span>
					</span>penalties<span>
					</span>totaling<span><span></span>
					</span>$520,860 are<span>
					</span>ASSESSED.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">2.<span>
					</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; text-decoration:underline ;">Case 20-1030</span>. The Citation<span>
					</span>and Notification of Penalty<span><span></span>
					</span>issued to Quevedo-Garcia on June 2,<span>
					</span>2020<span><span></span>
					</span>arising out of inspection number 1470364 is AFFIRMED in its entirety and<span><span></span>
					</span>the proposed<span><span></span>
					</span>penalties totaling $433,146 are ASSESSED.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">3.<span>
					</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; text-decoration:underline ;">Case 20-1031</span>. The Citation<span>
					</span>and Notification of Penalty<span><span></span>
					</span>issued to Quevedo-Garcia on June 2,<span>
					</span>2020<span><span></span>
					</span>arising out of inspection number 1464272 is AFFIRMED in its entirety and<span>
					</span>the proposed<span>
					</span>penalties totaling $274,892 are ASSESSED.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">4.<span>
					</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; text-decoration:underline ;">Case 20-103</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; text-decoration:underline ;">2</span>. The Citation<span>
					</span>and Notification of Penalty<span><span></span>
					</span>issued to Quevedo-Garcia on June 2,<span>
					</span>2020<span><span></span>
					</span>arising out of inspection number<span>
					</span>1466351<span><span></span>
					</span>is AFFIRMED in its entirety and<span>
					</span>the proposed<span>
					</span>penalties totaling $369,739<span><span></span>
					</span>are<span>
					</span>ASSESSED.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">5.<span>
					</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; text-decoration:underline ;">Case 20-10</span><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; text-decoration:underline ;">42</span>. The<span><span></span>
					</span>Citation<span>
					</span>and Notification of Penalty<span><span></span>
					</span>issued to<span>
					</span>Quevedo-Garcia<span><span></span>
					</span>on<span>
					</span>June 2,<span>
					</span>2020<span><span></span>
					</span>arising out of<span>
					</span>inspection number<span>
					</span>1470345<span><span></span>
					</span>is AFFIRMED in its entirety and<span>
					</span>the proposed<span>
					</span>penalties totaling<span><span></span>
					</span>$405,588 are<span>
					</span>ASSESSED.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">SO<span><span></span>
					</span>ORDERED.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>_<span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline ;">/s/William S. Coleman</span>__________<span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; text-decoration:underline ;"><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>WILLIAM S. COLEMAN</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Administrative Law<span>
					</span>Judge</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; "><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">DATED:</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span>March<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">8</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; ">, 2022</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<hr/>"
      <div>
				<p>
					<a name="ftn-1" href="#ftnref-1"></a> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p>
					<a name="ftn0" href="#ftnref0"></a> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="line-height:normal; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">
					<a name="ftn1" href="#ftnref1"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">1 </span></a><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>The description of certain details respecting the citation involved in Commission case 13</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">1603 is based on taking judicial notice of the docket filings in that Commission case</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Copomon Enters</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">, LLC</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">, 24<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">BNA OSHC</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>2177</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">, 2179 n. 1</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">No.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">13-0709</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">, 2018</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(ALJ)<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">(</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">t</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">aking judicial notice of documents filed in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">different Commission proceeding)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Those documents, and other documents pertaining to the underlying inspection, are known to both the Secretary and Quevedo-Garcia.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="line-height:normal; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">This j</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">udicial notice</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">is taken subject to either party’s opportunity to show the contrary. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>5 U.S.C. § 556(e) (providing that “[w]hen<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">an agency decision rests on official notice of a material fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a party is entitled, on timely request, to an opportunity to show the contrary</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">”); Fed. R. Evid. 201(e) (providing that if judicial notice is taken “before notifying a party, the party, on request, is still entitled to be heard”);<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">L & L Painting Co., Inc.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">, 22<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">BNA OSHC</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>1346</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">, 1352</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">No.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">05-0050</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>2008)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">. </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="line-height:normal; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">Either party may exercise the opportunity to show the contrary by requesting to do so<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">prior to</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the date the undersigned’s decision and report is to be filed with the Commission’s Executive Secretary for docketing pursuant to Commission Rule 90(b)(2). [That date is identified in the cover letter under which this decision is being served on the parties pursuant to Commission Rule 90(a)(2). 29 C.F.R. § 2200.90.] If either or both parties file such a request, the undersigned will not transmit the report to the Executive Secretary for docketing on the date identified, but rather may schedule further proceedings as appropriate.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="line-height:normal; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">
					<a name="ftn2" href="#ftnref2"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">2 </span></a><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">The findings<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">regarding inspection</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>number</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>897001</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>are based in part on<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">taking judicial</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>notice</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">of information<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">retrieved from</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>OSHA’s public website</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">where<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">OSHA publishes<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">certain information about<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">its<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">numbered inspections<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">(</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">most recently</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">access</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">ed on Feb</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">ruary</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>2</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">2</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">, 2022</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">osha.gov/pls/imis/InspectionNr.html</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See United States v. Garcia</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">, 855 F.3d 615, 621 (4th Cir. 2017)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(observing that courts “</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">routinely take judicial notice of information contained on state and federal government websites</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">”)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">The foundational<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">documents on which this publicly posted information is<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">based</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">are</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">known to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">both<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">the Secretary and Quevedo-Garcia</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>but</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">w</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">ere</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>not presented on the cross motions for summary judgment. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Cf. D</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">ukane Precast, Inc. v. Perez</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">, 785 F.3d 252, 254 (7th Cir. 2015)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">in judicial review a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">Commission<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">decision, the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">court of appeals “discovers on [its] own” certain facts</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">that were published on a municipality’s public website that the court<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">said it<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">“would have liked the parties to tell us”</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="line-height:normal; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">Judicial notice of these facts is taken subject to either party’s opportunity to show the contrary. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>5 U.S.C. § 556(e) (providing that “[w]hen<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">an agency decision rests on official notice of a material fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a party is entitled, on timely request, to an opportunity to show the contrary</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">”); Fed. R. Evid. 201(e) (providing that if judicial notice is taken “before notifying a party, the party, on request, is still entitled to be heard”); </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">L & L Painting Co., Inc.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">, 22<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">BNA OSHC</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>1346</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">1352</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">No.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">05-0050</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>2008)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="line-height:normal; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">Either party may<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">exercise the</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>opportunity to show the contrary<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">by requesting to do so<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">prior to</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the date the undersigned’s decision and report is to be filed with the Commission’s Executive Secretary for docketing pursuant to Commission Rule 90(b)(2). [That date is identified in the cover letter under which this decision is being served on the parties pursuant to Commission Rule 90(a)(2). 29 C.F.R. § 2200.90.] If either or both parties file such a request, the undersigned will not transmit the report to the Executive Secretary on the date identified, but rather<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">may</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>schedule further proceedings as appropriate.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="line-height:normal; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">
					<a name="ftn3" href="#ftnref3"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">3 </span></a><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>The record does not reflect Mr. Roca having been associated with any other companies controlled by Quevedo-Garcia and does not indicate wh</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">at, if any, involvement<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">Mr. Roca<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">had<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">in the operations of BM Frame.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "> The<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">Secretary’s ability to discover and present evidence relating to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">Mr. Roca’s role in the formation and operation of BM Frame<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">was substantially impeded by Quevedo</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">Garcia’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">incrimination</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="line-height:normal; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">
					<a name="ftn4" href="#ftnref4"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">4 </span></a><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">The attorney is presumed not to have made a knowing misrepresentation to counsel for the Secretary. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">The</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">re is no indication that the attorney<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">knew<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">that Quevedo</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">Garcia had caused BM Frame to be formed or that Quevedo-Garcia was its majority owner. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">The record does not reflect the point in the litigation when the Secretary became aware</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>that</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">Quevedo-Garcia had created</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>BM Frame and</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>was its majority owner</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="line-height:normal; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">
					<a name="ftn5" href="#ftnref5"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">5 </span></a><span style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">One C</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">ommissioner<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">has<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">not</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">ed that the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">Third Circuit’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">“clear and convincing</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>evidence</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">standard</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of proof<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">for</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">alter ego</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">liability<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">“does not appear to be the norm in other circuits.” </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Altor</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">23 BNA OSHC at</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">1480</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>n. 7 (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">Comm’r<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">Atwood</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">(</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">dissenting</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>from Commission’s decision that alter ego liability was not proven</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:normal; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">
					<a name="ftn6" href="#ftnref6"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; ">6 </span></a><span style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span>The D.C. Circuit is<span>
					</span>another court to which Quevedo-Garcia may seek<span>
					</span>judicial<span>
					</span>review of a final<span>
					</span>order of the Commission in these proceedings under section 11 of the Act. In<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Labadie Coal Co. v. Black</span>, 672 F.2d 92, 96 (D.C. Cir. 1982), the<span><span></span>
					</span>D.C. Circuit articulated a<span>
					</span>two-prong<span><span></span>
					</span>test<span>
					</span>for alter ego liability<span><span></span>
					</span>that<span><span></span>
					</span>echoes the test described<span>
					</span>by the Third Circuit<span>
					</span>in<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Pisani</span>:<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:normal; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; margin-right:96px; ">(1) is there such unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individual no longer exist?; and (2) if the acts are treated as those of the corporation alone, will an inequitable result follow?<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>Relevant to the first question is the issue of the degree to which formalities have been followed to maintain a separate corporate identity.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>The second question looks to the basic issue of fairness under the facts.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:normal; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">
					<a name="ftn7" href="#ftnref7"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; ">7 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>CO Sydenstricker’s Declaration is clear and convincing evidence that Quevedo-Garcia harbored some fraudulent intent in his communications with inspecting OSHA officials. QuevedoGarcia has presented no evidentiary material to controvert that component of the declaration and there is otherwise no evidentiary material in the record on the cross-motions to establish a genuine dispute of that stated fact as is set forth in Sydenstricker’s declaration. It is therefore undisputed for purposes of the cross-motions that Quevedo-Garcia misrepresented to OSHA officials that Frame Q was the corporate entity doing the construction work. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">See</span><span><span></span>
					</span>Rule 56(e)(2) (“If a party ... fails to properly address another party’s assertion of fact ... the court may ... consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion”).</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:5.333px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:normal; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">
					<a name="ftn8" href="#ftnref8"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; ">8 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>Papers of record in this matter show that Quevedo-Garcia was charged<span>
					</span>in state court in New Jersey<span>
					</span>on December 19, 2019<span>
					</span>with<span><span></span>
					</span>the<span><span></span>
					</span>following criminal charges: </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:normal; text-align:justify; margin-left:60px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:normal; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-family:Symbol; padding-right:20px;">·</span>third degree crimes of intent to evade tax liability of $87,927.05 for both tax years 2017 and 2018;</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:normal; text-align:justify; margin-left:60px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:normal; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-family:Symbol; padding-right:20px;">·</span>third degree crime of failing to report $824,857.76 in income for tax year 2017;</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:normal; text-align:justify; margin-left:60px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:normal; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-family:Symbol; padding-right:20px;">·</span>third degree crime of failing to report $985,892.40 in income for tax year 2018;<span><span></span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:normal; text-align:justify; margin-left:60px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:normal; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-family:Symbol; padding-right:20px;">·</span>third degree crime of conspiracy to commit structuring with the purpose of promoting or facilitating engaging in conduct with purpose to evade state and federal transaction reporting requirements regarding currency transactions by breaking down at least $424,000 in currency into smaller sums of cash on at least 52 separate occasions then deposited at two different financial institutions on multiple dates between or about April 2018 to September 2019;</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:normal; text-align:justify; margin-left:60px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:normal; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-family:Symbol; padding-right:20px;">·</span>second degree crime of conspiracy to commit money laundering by engaging in transactions involving property known or which a reasonable person would believe to be derived from criminal activity with the intent to facilitate or promote criminal activity by cashing 661 checks at a check casher in the aggregate of at least $5.7 million then structuring deposits into at least two separate financial institutions in the name of another person or persons or entities for the purpose of facilitating or promoting New Jersey tax offenses;</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:5.333px; line-height:normal; text-align:justify; margin-left:60.467px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:5.333px; line-height:normal; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-family:Symbol; padding-right:20px;">·</span>first degree crime of money laundering respecting the sum of $5.7 million<span>
				</span>(as described<span><span></span>
				</span>in preceding bullet item).</p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:normal; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Quevedo-Garcia’s sister has been charged with the<span>
					</span>same<span>
					</span>crimes<span>
					</span>that are<span>
					</span>described in the last three charges in the above<span>
					</span>list<span>
					</span>of charges<span>
					</span>lodged against Quevedo-Garcia. Both<span>
					</span>QuevedoGarcia and his sister have filed applications to be admitted to a pre-trial intervention program. (<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">See</span><span><span></span>
					</span>material filed by counsel for Respondent under cover of letter dated July 28, 2021).</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:normal; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Quevedo-Garcia first formally invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege through counsel in a filing made on July 16, 2021, which his counsel re-affirmed in a letter dated July 28, 2021, both of which were filed with the Commission<span><span></span>
					</span>in opposition to<span>
					</span>discovery<span>
					</span>motions<span><span></span>
					</span>filed by the Secretary. Although the parties originally agreed<span>
					</span>that<span><span></span>
					</span>the Secretary<span>
					</span>would<span>
					</span>depose<span>
					</span>QuevedoGarcia, QuevedoGarcia<span>
					</span>later<span>
					</span>reneged<span><span></span>
					</span>upon invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege. The Secretary then filed a motion for leave to take Quevedo-Garcia’s deposition, but the undersigned essentially sustained<span><span></span>
					</span>Quevedo Garcia’s assertion of the privilege and denied the motion in an order dated August 13, 2021. That same order similarly sustained<span>
					</span>Quevedo-Garcia’s assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege<span>
					</span>with respect to<span>
					</span>responses to<span>
					</span>certain interrogatories. Another order<span>
					</span>dated October 5, 2021<span>
					</span>similarly upheld Quevedo-Garcia’s assertion of the privilege in<span>
					</span>denying<span><span></span>
					</span>the Secretary’s motion that requests for admissions<span><span></span>
					</span>that Quevedo-Garcia<span>
					</span>had<span>
					</span>refused<span><span></span>
					</span>to admit or deny be deemed<span><span></span>
					</span>admitted.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:normal; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Quevedo-Garcia’s invocations<span><span></span>
					</span>of the privilege were<span><span></span>
					</span>sustained principally on the ground that his framing business<span><span></span>
					</span>had links to<span><span></span>
					</span>the financial crimes of which he stands charged. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Hoffman v. United States</span>, 341 U.S. 479, 488 (1951) (stating that the privilege must be sustained if it is not “perfectly clear, from a careful consideration of all the circumstances in the case ... that the answer(s) cannot possibly have such tendency to incriminate”). Despite the invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege, the Secretary obtained some relevant documentation in<span><span></span>
					</span>Quevedo-Garcia’s<span><span></span>
					</span>responses<span><span></span>
					</span>to requests to produce<span><span></span>
					</span>documents, in declarations by Quevedo-Garcia<span>
					</span>made<span>
					</span>in<span>
					</span>his<span>
					</span>verified responses to interrogatories, and by subpoenaing<span>
					</span>financial<span>
					</span>documents from an accountant and<span><span></span>
					</span>from<span><span></span>
					</span>two banks. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="line-height:normal; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">
					<a name="ftn9" href="#ftnref9"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">9 </span></a><span style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">T</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">he Commission’s rules of procedure permit the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">assertion<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">of incon</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">gruous</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">alternative<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">theories of liability</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">29 C.F.R. §</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "> </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">2200.30(e) (allowing parties to “state as many separate claims or defenses that it has regardless of consistency”)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="line-height:normal; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">
					<a name="ftn10" href="#ftnref10"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">10 </span></a><span style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">Assuming the information on the tax return and on the certificate of dissolution to be true, then by the time that BB Frame was dissolved in November 2020 the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">$2</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">7</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">5</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">00<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">representing capital stock had been liquidated either by paying creditors or being distributed to</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the owners––</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">Quevedo</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">Garcia and his sister.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="line-height:normal; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">
					<a name="ftn11" href="#ftnref11"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">11 </span></a><span style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">The lack of evidence on this factor may be due at least in part upon Quevedo-Garcia’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">pre-hearing discovery and the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">consequent<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">thwarting of the Secretary’s efforts to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">obtain relevant information</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">, as<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">previously described</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "> Nevertheless, there<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">is</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>no independent evidence in the record respecting<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">the degree of capitalization appropriate for a company of BB Frame’s size</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">, business activity, and location</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">and thus<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">drawing an adverse inference from Quevedo-Garcia’s silence is not permissible. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Stelmokas</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">, 100 F.3d<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">at</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>311</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="line-height:normal; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">
					<a name="ftn12" href="#ftnref12"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">12 </span></a><span style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">The only exception<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">to BM Frame’s complete financing of framing operations</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>that is apparent in the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">summary judgment record is that on January 30, 2020,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">payment of $2,470.32<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">for BB Frame’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">payroll taxes for the fourth quarter of 2019 was disbursed from a bank account of Q</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "> </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">Nails, which<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">is owned by<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">Quevedo-Garcia’s sister</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">, who also owned 30% BB Frame</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">. (Ex. 37).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="line-height:normal; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">
					<a name="ftn13" href="#ftnref13"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">13 </span></a><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>The Secretary’s evidence asserting this fact was not addressed by Quevedo-Garcia in his response to the Secretary’s motion as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">, so it<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">is deemed undisputed for purposes of the cross-motions<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; ">pursuant to</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Rule 56(e)(2). </span></p>
			</div></div></body>
</html>