In the Matter of the Complaint Against: MARTIN PEYRON d/b/a, MARTINHOUSER ENTERPRISES, P.O. Box 7492 at Tucson, AZ 85725-7492 P.S. Docket No. 37/126 07/30/91 Cohen, James A., Judicial Officer Appearances for Complainant: Jerry Belenker, Esq., Betty A. Garner, Esq., Consumer Protection Division, Law Department, United States Postal Service, Washington, DC 20260-1144 Appearance for Respondent: Martin Peyron, Suite 125, 2203 E. Broadway Boulevard, Tucson, AZ 85719-6013
POSTAL SERVICE DECISION ON MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT
By letter received July 2, 1991, Respondent filed a response to the order of default issued on March 28, 1991. Respondent's letter which was supplemented by his letter received July 19, 1991, has been treated as a motion to set aside the order of default. Complainant opposes Respondent's motion.
Background
The Complaint and Notice of Answer and Hearing were properly served on Respondent on March 5, 1991. According to the Notice of Answer and Hearing, the Answer was to be filed within 15 calendar days from the date of receipt of the Complaint, or on or before March 20, 1991. As of March 28, 1991, the Answer had not been filed and pursuant to 39 C.F.R. $S952.11(a), an Order finding Respondent in default was issued along with the Cease and Desist Order and False Representation Order sought in the Complaint.
Discussion
In his response to the order of default, Respondent contends that his solicitation does not make the false representations alleged in the Complaint. However, the allegation of a meritorious defense does not excuse Respondent's failure to file a timely Answer. Shano De Leon, P.S. Docket No. 37/79 at 4 (P.S.D. March 8, 1991); Glen Marion Pilie, P.S. Docket No. 37/49 at 3 (P.S.D. Feb. 28, 1991); National Ass'n of Bankcard Holders, Inc., P.S. Docket No. 33/163 at 3 (P.S.D. May 19, 1989). Moreover, Respondent has not shown that a meritorious defense exists in this case. Further, Respondent has not shown excusable cause for his failure to file a timely Answer or to request an extension of time for filing the Answer. In the absence of such showings, the Judicial Officer will not exercise his discretion to set aside the default. See Shano De Leon, at 5; Proven Products, P.S. Docket No. 17/151 at 3 (P.S.D. Jan. 18, 1984). Accordingly, Respondent's motion to set aside the default is denied.