The Clayton Law Firm recently represented a District of Columbia business in an administrative hearing initiated by the District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs ("DCRA"). The DCRA alleged that the Clayton Law Firm's client had been operating without a current business license and sought to impose a fine in excess of $2,000.00.
At the hearing, the DCRA presented evidence allegedly showing that there was no record in its database of Jefferson Grill having renewed its license and that its information specifically showed the license as expired on the infraction date. The Clayton Law firm defended the allegations by introducing evidence that the license renewal fee had been paid well in advance of both the renewal date and the alleged infraction date. The Clayton Law Firm argued that the information it had compiled showed that the evidence introduced by the DCRA was inaccurate. In support of this, the Clayton Law Firm introduced contradictory evidence showing that the DCRA's database actually listed the business's license renewal status as "pending" on the alleged infraction date as opposed to "expired" as the DCRA claimed at the hearing.
After reviewing the contradictory evidence, the administrative law judge ordered the DCRA to provide an explanation for the discrepancy in its records. However, instead of submitting the explanation, the DCRA dismissed the complaint having to admit that the business was actually in compliance with the licensing requirement on the date of the alleged infraction.
If your business is dealing with administrative or regulatory agency issues, has had an administrative agency complaint filed against it, or is party to a pending administrative hearing, contact the Clayton Law Firm to discuss the options available to your business.