In the Matter of the Complaint Against

ECONOMIC DATA CORPORATION
46 Patterson Street
at New Brunswick, NJ 08901

and

PROFESSIONAL ASSETS DEVELOPMENT, INC.
24 Bennington Road
at Bordentown, NJ 08505

P.S. Docket No. 11/92;

Cohen, James A.

APPEARANCE FOR COMPLAINANT:
H. Richard Hefner, Esq.
Consumer Protection Division
Law Department
United States Postal Service
Washington, DC 20260-1100

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Raymond M. Brown, Esq.
Brown, Brown & Furst
Gateway 1 Suite 1800
Newark, NJ 07102

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION
ON MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT ORDER

On July 6, 1981, Respondent filed a Motion to Vacate the Default Order issued on July 1, 1981. The Order which Respondent seeks to have vacated (Mail Stop Order No. 81-137) was issued because Respondent had not filed its Answer within the 15-day period provided in the Rules of Practice, 39 CFR Part 952, and the Notice of Answer and Hearing served on Respndent on May 28, 1981.

Respondent alleges in its Motion that the Answer was not timely filed because its counsel was involved in representing Respondent in numerous facets of various proceedings. According to Respondent it should not be penalized for its counsel's failure to file a timely Answer. Respondent also argues that the Government was not prejudiced by the late filing. Complainant opposes Respondent's Motion to Vacate contending that the record clearly establishes that Respondent was in default and sufficient grounds to warrant vacating the Mail Stop Order have not been shown.

Respondent has not established that Mail Stop Order no. 81-137 should be vacated. The failure of Respondent or its designated agent to file a timely Answer, even if through inadvertence or neglect, does not serve as a basis for setting aside the default. See Government Lands Digest, P.S. Docket No. 10/111 (PSD July 7, 1981). The lack of prejudice to Complainant is not determinative. Prejudice to the public does exist where delays occur in a proceeding under 39 U.S. Code § 3005.

Accordingly, Respondent's Motion to Vacate Mail Stop Order No. 81-137 is denied.