SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Complainant,
v.	OSHRC DOCKET Nos. 20-1029, 20-1030, 20-1031, 20-1032, & 20-1042
JUAN G. QUEVEDO-GARCIA, Respondent.

1.The Respondent, Mr. Juan G. Quevedo Garcia (Quevedo-Garcia or Respondent), is an individual whose primary residence is [redacted], Palisades Park, New Jersey (Quevedo-Garcia Residence). (Exs. 1 & 4 to Declaration of Alexander Kondo, Oct. 15, 2021 [Kondo Decl.])

2.Quevedo-Garcia was originally cited along with BB Frame LLC (BB Frame) for the violations and proposed penalties that remain here alleged against Quevedo-Garcia alone. As to BB Frame, the alleged violations and penalties subsequently became final orders against it, as detailed infra.

3.BB Frame was organized as a New Jersey limited liability company on April 13, 2017 and was voluntarily dissolved about 42 months later, on November 19, 2020. (Exs. 9 & 10 to Kondo Decl.). QuevedoGarcia owned 70% of BB Frame and was its only officer, serving as its president. Quevedo-Garcia’s sister, Magda QuevedoGarcia, was the only other member of BB Frame, owning 30%. (Exs. 7 & 8 to Kondo Decl.; Quevedo-Garcia Motion for Summary Judgment, Sept. 23, 2021 [QuevedoGarcia Mot.] ¶ 10). BB Frame maintained its principal office and place of business at the Quevedo-Garcia Residence. (Ex. 4 to Kondo Decl.).

4.BB Frame was a construction contractor engaged mainly in framing small to medium sized residential structures. (Exs. 4 & 31 to Kondo Decl.; Quevedo-Garcia Mot. ¶¶ 1 & 10).

5. Quevedo-Garcia was the only person authorized to hire, terminate, direct, train or discipline employees of BB Frame. (Ex. 31 to Kondo Decl.). 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 Decl.).

6.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 Quevedo-Garcia first formally asserted through counsel on July 16, 2021, 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 that denied discovery motions filed by the Secretary.)

7.Frame Q LLC (“Frame Q”) was organized as a New Jersey limited liability company on January 21, 2013 with Quevedo-Garcia as the sole owner and its president. (Exs. 2, 3, 31 to Kondo Decl.; Quevedo-Garcia Mot. ¶ 1). Frame Q maintained its principal office and place of business at the Quevedo-Garcia Residence. (Exs. 2, 3, & 4 to Kondo Decl.). Frame Q was voluntarily dissolved on April 7, 2019. (Exs. 5 & 6, Kondo).

8.Frame Q was a construction contractor engaged mainly in framing small to medium sized residential structures. (Exs. 4 & 31 to Kondo Decl.; Quevedo-Garcia Mot. ¶ 1). 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 Q. (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.).

9.BM Frame LLC (BM Frame) was organized as a New Jersey limited liability company on December 24, 2019 with two members––Quevedo-Garcia (75% owner) and Hector F. Roca (25% owner). (Exs. 1, 11 & 12 to Kondo Decl.). At the time of its formation, BM Frame sought and obtained authorization from the State of New Jersey to operate under the alternate name of “BB Frame.” (Exs. 12 & 13 to Kondo Decl.).

10.BM Frame sought and obtained a license from the State of New Jersey as a home improvement contractor and is engaged in framing small to medium sized residential structures. (Exs. 12 & 29 to Kondo Decl.). BM Frame maintains its principal office and place of business at the Quevedo-Garcia Residence. (Ex. 12 to Kondo Decl.).

11.The Secretary’s ability to discover and present evidence relating to BM Frame’s formation and operations in support of his motion for summary judgment was substantially impeded by QuevedoGarcia’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory selfincrimination.

12.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 his sister Magda owns 40%. Q Properties is in the business of renting and selling real estate. (Exs. 1, 3 & 14 to Kondo Decl.).

13.A company named Q Properties II LLC (Q Properties II) has an address at the QuevedoGarcia Residence. (Kondo Decl. ¶ 16). There is no information in the record regarding the identity of the owners of Q Properties II, but in 2020, BM Frame issued checks totaling $18,000 payable to Q Properties II, as described infra.

14.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 infra. (Ex. 36 to Kondo Decl.).

15.The Secretary’s ability to discover and present evidence relating to Q Properties, Q Properties II, and Q Nails in support of his motion for summary judgment was substantially impeded by Quevedo-Garcia’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory selfincrimination.

16.These five consolidated cases involve five separate citations that were originally issued to both BB Frame and to Quevedo-Garcia. The five citations alleged a total of 33 separate violations of 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 5, 2019 to March 2, 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:

a.All 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).

b.All five citations alleged either a willful or a repeat violation of the eye and face protection standard codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.102(a)(1).

c.Three of the five citations alleged repeat violations of the head protection standard codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.100(a).

d.The citations collectively set forth nine alleged violations of the Stairways and Ladders standard codified at 29 C.F.R. pt. 1926, subpt. X. Three of those alleged violations were classified as repeat violations, and two others were classified as willful violations.

17.The five citations proposed penalties totaling $2,004,225. The details of each of these five citations are described in following ¶¶ 18–53.

18.On December 5, 2019, a compliance safety and health officer (CO) from the area office of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, opened OSHA inspection number 1450621 at a residential construction site in Cliffside Park, New Jersey at 700 Palisades Avenue. 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 CO.

19.Quevedo-Garcia told the CO that the name of his business doing the construction work was Frame Q and that the employees at the site were Frame Q employees. He said this even though Frame Q had been formally dissolved eight months earlier in April 2019. Two trucks present at the worksite displayed logos for Frame Q on the sides and rear of the trucks, and at the time of the inspection the registered owner of at least one of the trucks remained Frame Q. (Sydenstricker Decl. ¶¶ 13–15).

20.About four months after the inspection, in April 2000, an attorney for QuevedoGarcia informed OSHA that Frame Q was out of business. (Sydenstricker Decl.). OSHA determined thereafter that BB Frame was the company performing the construction work at the site on December 5, 2019 (although the evidence of record does not reveal how OSHA arrived at this determination).

21.On June 2, 2020, OSHA issued a Citation and Notification of Penalty to both the company, BB Frame, and to the individual, 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. The citation against BB Frame and Quevedo-Garcia alleged nine violations (four classified as serious, three as willful, and two as repeated). The citation proposed penalties totaling $520,860.

22.The citation alleged that the two “repeated” classifications were predicated on prior violations by Frame Q that had become final orders in 2017.

23.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 December 5 and on December 6.

24.BB Frame and Quevedo-Garcia timely contested the citation and proposed penalties, and the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission) subsequently docketed the matter and assigned it docket number 20-1029. The Secretary then filed a complaint alleging that both BB Frame and Quevedo-Garcia “are employers within the meaning of section 3(5) of the Act” and realleging against both BB Frame and QuevedoGarcia all the violations and proposed penalties described in the citation. The complaint alleged further that Quevedo-Garcia “as owner and principal of both BB Frame LLC and Frame Q LLC, abused the corporate form in an attempt to evade liability for prior violations” of the OSH Act. (Compl. ¶ II & III, Aug. 27, 2020).

25.BB Frame and Quevedo-Garcia duly filed a joint answer that generally denied the allegations of the complaint. In the joint answer, BB Frame expressly denied that BB Frame was the successor company to Frame Q, and Quevedo-Garcia expressly denied any personal liability for the violations alleged. (Answer, Sept. 11, 2020). The joint answer interposed “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] individually has no liability and no relationship of any kind, nor responsibility to” the Complainant, and (c) “Any relationship by and between [Respondents] and [Complainant] were corporate in nature and not personal.”

26.BB Frame later withdrew its notice of contest respecting case number 20-1029 (as well as its notices of contest in the four other cases with which it has been consolidated, as reflected in the caption). (Withdrawal, Apr. 5, 2021). After that withdrawal, the undersigned issued an order severing BB Frame from case 20-1029 and further severing BB Frame from the four other cases with which case 20-1029 was consolidated. Upon BB Frame’s severance from case 201029, the claims against BB Frame were assigned to a newly opened Commission case with docket number 21-0635.

27.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 BB Frame on June 2, 2020 that arose out of inspection 1450621 became a final order against BB Frame in case 210635 on August 23, 2021.

28.After the severance of BB Frame from case 20-1029 (and the consolidated cases reflected in the caption) QuevedoGarcia remained the sole respondent. The parties executed a formal stipulation in which Quevedo-Garcia expressly agreed to “waive[] any defense to the Citations and Notifications of Penalty other than the defense that [he] should not be held liable for the Citations and Notifications of Penalty in his individual capacity.” (Stipulation, May 22, 2021).

29.On December 31, 2019, a CO from OSHA’s area office in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, opened OSHA inspection number 1470364 at a residential construction site in Fort Lee, New Jersey at 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 CO. The same trucks that displayed logos of Frame Q that were present at the Cliffside Park worksite on December 5, 2019, were present at the Fort Lee worksite. (Sydenstricker Decl.).

30.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 also that BB Frame was the successor company of Frame Q LLC. The citation 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 predicated on a prior violation by Frame Q that had become a final order in 2017. 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).

31.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 Secretary then filed a complaint setting forth allegations substantially identical to those described supra in ¶ 24 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.

32.BB Frame later withdrew its notice of contest respecting case number 20-1030 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 and from the other consolidated cases. Upon BB Frame’s severance from case 20-1030, the claims against BB Frame were assigned to a newly opened Commission case with docket number 21-0636. The violations and proposed penalties set forth in the citation issued to BB Frame on June 2, 2020 that arose out of inspection 1470364 became a final order against BB Frame in case 210636 on August 23, 2021.

33.After the severance of BB Frame from case 20-1030 (and the consolidated cases reflected in the caption) 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.

34.On January 7, 2020, a CO from OSHA’s area office in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, opened OSHA inspection number 1470345 of a residential construction site in Cliffside Park, New Jersey at 671 Grove Avenue. 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 displaying logos of Frame Q that were present at the two BB Frame worksites in December 2019 as described above were present at the Grove Avenue worksite. (Sydenstricker Decl.).

35.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 one serious and four repeat violations and proposed penalties totaling $405,588.

36.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 alleged repeat violations cited the fall protection in residential construction standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1926.501(b)(13), and averred that Frame Q had violated that standard eight times before in separate violations that had become final orders between October 3, 2013 and February 6, 2019, and further that five of those prior violations of Frame Q had been classified as repeated and two had been classified as willful.

37.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 allegations substantially identical to those described supra in ¶ 24 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.

38.BB Frame later withdrew its notice of contest respecting case number 20-1042 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 from the other consolidated cases. Upon BB Frame’s severance from case 20-1042, the claims against BB Frame were assigned to a newly opened Commission case with docket number 21-0639. The violations and proposed penalties set forth in the citation issued to BB Frame on June 2, 2020 that arose out of inspection 1470356 became a final order against BB Frame in case 210639 on August 23, 2021.

39.After the severance of BB Frame from case 20-1042 (and the consolidated cases reflected in the caption) 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.

40.On February 20, 2020, a CO from OSHA’s area office in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, opened OSHA inspection number 1464272 of a residential construction site in Palisades Park, New Jersey at 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 that displayed 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 Decl.).

41.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 one serious, one willful, and two repeat violations and proposed penalties totaling $274,892.

42.The violation alleged to have been “willful” cited the fall protection standard for residential construction, which is codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.501(b)(13). That willful citation item alleged that the company Frame Q LLC had violated that standard seven times previously, with those violations having become final orders in 2017, 2018, and 2019, and with all seven of those prior violations having been classified as either willful or repeat violations.

43.The citation alleged that the classifications of the two “repeat” violations were predicated on prior violations by Frame Q that had become final orders in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

44.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 allegations substantially identical to those described supra in ¶ 24 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.

45.BB Frame later withdrew its notice of contest respecting case number 20-1031 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 and from the other consolidated cases. Upon BB Frame’s severance from case 20-1031, the claims against BB Frame were assigned to a newly opened Commission case with docket number 21-0637. The violations and proposed penalties set forth in the citation issued to BB Frame on June 2, 2020 that arose out of inspection 1464272 became a final order against BB Frame in case 210637 on August 23, 2021.

46.After the severance of BB Frame from case 20-1031 (and the consolidated cases reflected in the caption) 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.

47.On February 28, 2020, a CO from OSHA’s area office in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, opened OSHA inspection number 1466351 of the same residential construction site that was the subject of inspection 146427 (case 20-1031) in Palisades Park, New Jersey at 20 West Central Boulevard. BB Frame was again engaged in construction activities at this worksite. Quevedo-Garcia was again present at this worksite. The same trucks displaying logos of Frame Q that were present at the same worksite on February 20, 2020, as described above were present at the worksite on February 28, 2020. (Sydenstricker Decl.).

48.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 five serious, one willful, and three repeat violations and proposed penalties totaling $369,739.

49.The citation alleged that the classifications for the three “repeat” violations were predicated on prior violations of OSHA standards by Frame Q that had become final orders in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

50.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.

51.BB Frame and Quevedo-Garcia timely contested the citation and proposed penalties, and the Commission subsequently docketed the matter and assigned it docket number 20-1032. The Secretary then filed a complaint setting forth allegations substantially identical to those described supra in ¶ 24 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.

52.BB Frame later withdrew its notice of contest respecting case number 20-1032 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 and from the other consolidated cases. Upon BB Frame’s severance from case 20-1032, the claims against BB Frame were assigned to a newly opened Commission case with docket number 21-0638. The violations and proposed penalties set forth in the citation issued to BB Frame on June 2, 2020 that arose out of inspection 1466351 became a final order against BB Frame in case 210638 on August 23, 2021.

53.After the severance of BB Frame from case 20-1042 (and the consolidated cases reflected in the caption) 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.

54.From February 2013 to July 2018, officials from OSHA’s area office in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, conducted thirteen inspections of Frame Q worksites. CO Stuart Sydenstricker was the lead OSHA official on seven of those inspections, during which he directly explained OSHA safety requirements to Quevedo-Garcia. CO Sydenstricker specifically explained the requirement that workers utilize certain fall protection measures, and each time Quevedo-Garcia indicated that he understood this requirement. Nevertheless, on multiple occasions during those inspections, Quevedo-Garcia said that he intentionally does not require the employees to utilize compliant fall protection measures because he did not consider those measures to be worth the expense. (Sydenstricker Decl. ¶ 7).

55.Each of the thirteen inspections of Frame Q worksites resulted in the OSHA area office issuing to Frame Q a separate Citation and Notification of Penalty relating to each inspection. Twelve of those thirteen citations ultimately became final orders in which all the citations and proposed penalties became final orders as they had been originally issued. (One of the thirteen citations did not result in the complete affirmance of the citation items and proposed penalties as originally issued, but rather resulted reduced penalties and the reclassification of one violation pursuant to the terms of a formal settlement agreement, as described infra in ¶ 57.) Altogether, the thirteen citations established 40 violations of certain construction industry workplace safety and health standards codified in 29 C.F.R. pt. 1926. Of those 40 violations, twenty-one were classified as serious, seventeen were classified as repeated, and two were classified as willful. Those 40 violations included the following:

a.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.

b.Twelve violations of personal protective equipment standards pertaining to eye, face, and head protection. Nine of those twelve violations were repeat violations.

c.Ten violations of the “Stairways and Ladders” standard codified at 29 C.F.R. pt. 1926, subpt. X.

d.Nine violations of the “Scaffolds” standard codified at 29 C.F.R. pt. 1926, subpt. L. Two of those nine violations were repeat violations.

56.The penalties arising out of the thirteen citations totaled $777,609. Of that amount, Frame Q has paid $4,800 that had been assessed in connection with an inspection conducted in August 2013 as described infra at ¶ 58. Frame Q did not pay any of the remaining sum of $772,809 either before or after its voluntary dissolution on April 7, 2019. (Sydenstricker Decl.). A summary of those thirteen prior inspections and resulting citations issued to Frame Q between February 2013 and January 2019 are set forth infra in ¶¶ 57–69.

57.Inspection 897001 of Frame Q Worksite. 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 Frame Q was 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 131603.1 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 associated penalties that totaled $4,180 that were payable in ten equal monthly installments. Frame Q did not pay the agreed penalties. (Sydenstricker Decl.).

58.Inspection 927166 of Frame Q Worksite. 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 Q that alleged two serious violations and proposed penalties totaling $4,800.2 Frame Q did not contest the citation and paid the proposed penalty of $4,800, which is the only penalty for any established violations of OSHA standards that Frame Q has paid. (Sydenstricker Decl.).

59.Inspection 955187 of Frame Q Worksite. On January 16, 2014, a CO from OSHA’s area office in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, opened OSHA inspection number 955187 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 three serious violations and proposed penalties totaling $23,320. Frame Q did not contest the citation or proposed penalties and consequently they became a final order pursuant to section 10(b) of the Act. Frame Q has not paid the imposed penalties. (Sydenstricker Decl.; footnote 2, supra, [as to judicial notice of OSHA website information] ).

60.Inspection 983958 of Frame Q Worksite. On January 24, 2014, a CO from OSHA’s area office in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, opened OSHA inspection number 983958 at the same residential construction site in Teaneck, New Jersey at 368 Edgewood Avenue that had been the subject of inspection 955187, which is 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 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 Decl.; footnote 2, supra, [as to judicial notice of OSHA website information] ).

61.Inspection 979064 of Frame Q Worksite. On March 3, 2014, a CO from OSHA’s area office in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, opened OSHA inspection number 979064 of a residential construction site in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey at 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 four serious violations and proposed penalties totaling $14,520. Frame Q did not contest the citation and consequently it became a final order by operation of law on July 23, 2014, pursuant to section 10(a) of the Act. By letter dated November 23, 2016, Frame Q sought to challenge this final order by filing with the Commission 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 16-2015. 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 Decl.; footnote 1, supra [as to judicial notice of Commission case files] ).

62.Inspection 1052385 of Frame Q Worksite. 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 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 16-2011. 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 Decl.; footnote 1, supra [as to judicial notice of Commission files] ).

63.Inspection 1042114 of Frame Q Worksite. 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 June 22, 2015, OSHA issued a citation and notification of penalty to Frame Q that alleged one serious, one willful, and one repeat violation, 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 Decl.; footnote 1, supra [as to judicial notice of Commission files]).

64.Inspection 1071019 of Frame Q Worksite. 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 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 Decl.; footnote 1, supra [as to judicial notice of Commission files] ).

65.Inspection 1076348 of Frame Q Worksite. 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 that alleged one willful and two repeat violations, and that 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 Decl.; footnote 1, supra [as to judicial notice of Commission files]).

66.Inspection 1113701 of Frame Q Worksite. 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 Decl.; footnote 1, supra [as to judicial notice of Commission files] ).

67.Inspection 1149505 of Frame Q Worksite. 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. 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 and proposed penalties totaling $222,697. Frame Q timely contested the citation and proposed penalties, and the Commission’s Executive Secretary docketed the matter and assigned it docket number 161737. Frame Q 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 March 22, 2018. Frame Q has not paid the imposed penalties. (Ex. 16 to Kondo Decl.; Sydenstricker Decl.; footnote 1 supra [as to judicial notice of Commission files] ).

68.Inspection 1264265 of Frame Q Worksite. On April 3, 2017, a CO from OSHA’s area office in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, opened OSHA inspection number 1264265 of a residential construction site in Fort Lee, New Jersey at 2475 Sixth Street. Frame Q was engaged in construction activities at this worksite. On September 25, 2017, OSHA issued a citation and notification of penalty that alleged two serious and two repeat violations and proposing penalties totaling $153,241. Frame Q timely 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 Commission Judge issued an order to show cause to Frame Q directing Frame Q to show cause why it should not be held in default. Frame Q did not formally respond to the order to show cause. However, Frame Q’s attorney informally advised the Commission on June 20, 2018 that Frame Q had “closed its business” and that Frame Q would not file any 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 default became a final order on August 8, 2018. Frame Q has not paid the imposed penalties. (Ex. 18 to Kondo Decl.; Sydenstricker Decl.; footnote 1 supra [as to judicial notice of Commission files] ).

69.Inspection 1329463 of Frame Q Worksite. 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 Decl.; footnote 2, supra [as to judicial notice of OSHA website information] ).

70.The penalties imposed on Frame Q in the thirteen inspections from 2013 to 2018 totaled $777,609. Of that sum, Frame Q paid only $4,800. (Sydenstricker Decl.; footnotes 1 and 2, supra).

71.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, 2019 that Frame Q did not contest.

72.Quevedo-Garcia caused Frame Q to be dissolved on April 7, 2019, which was about ten weeks after the last of the described thirteen citations issued to Frame Q became a final order.

73.In its federal tax return for tax year 2018, which was dated four days after Frame Q was formally dissolved in April 2019, Frame Q reported gross receipts of $528,895 and total income of $366,528. After deductions from the total income figure for expenses such as compensation of officers and salaries and wages, Frame Q reported a positive business income of $14,464 for tax year 2018. The 2018 tax return reflects a balance sheet liability for “accounts payable” at the beginning of the tax year of $303,318 but by the end of the year that balance sheet liability had been reduced by 44% to $170,807. (Ex. 2 to Kondo Decl.). There is no evidence regarding the components of this balance sheet liability for accounts payable, or the identity of the creditors. The Secretary’s ability to discover and present evidence relating to the 2018 balance sheet liabilities 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.

74.On February 6, 2019, the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey (USAO-NJ) brought a civil action in federal district court against Frame Q to collect $473,178 in unpaid OSHA penalties relating to eight of the citations issued to Frame Q (the six late contests plus the citations that resulted from inspections 1149505 and 1264265). The civil action also sought $205,325.01 in interest and fees.

75.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 USAONJ filed a voluntary dismissal of its collection action after concluding that Frame Q could not be successfully served with the summons and complaint because it had been dissolved. (Jordan Anger Decl.).

76.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” to BB Frame. (Ex. 4 to Kondo Decl.). At least one of those vehicles remained officially registered to Frame Q during the underlying inspections of BB Frame’s worksites involved here. (Ex. B to Sydenstricker Decl.).

77.In Frame Q’s certificate of dissolution filed on April 7, 2019, Quevedo-Garcia represented that “[a]ll assets have been discarded and have been applied to creditors or distributed to members.” (Ex. 6 to Kondo Decl.). There is no evidence respecting 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.

78.Quevedo-Garcia caused Frame Q to be dissolved at least in part to avoid collection of unpaid penalties of $772,809 that resulted from OSHA inspections of Frame Q worksites. (Quevedo-Garcia Mot. ¶¶ 6–9).

79.Prior to Frame Q’s formal dissolution April 2019, Quevedo-Garcia discontinued framing operations through Frame Q and transitioned all of Frame Q’s framing operations to BB Frame. Frame Q’s employees began working for BB Frame doing the same type of construction work and in the same locale as Frame Q. (Exs. 4, 24, 25, 31 to Kondo Decl.).

80.On April 13, 2017, Quevedo-Garcia caused BB Frame to be formed; its certificate of formation did not identify any member(s) of the company. (Ex. 9 to Kondo Decl.; Sydenstricker Decl. ¶ 10). BB Frame was formed ten days after OSHA had opened inspection number 1264265, which was the twelfth of the thirteen inspections of Frame Q worksites described supra in ¶ 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.).

81.In mid-2018, Quevedo-Garcia transferred $20,000 from Frame Q to BB Frame by issuing three checks from Frame Q’s bank account (dated respectively on June 20, July 21, and August 2, 2018). He signed these checks as the agent of Frame Q and he then endorsed on behalf of BB Frame for deposit into BB Frame’s bank account. (Exs. 21 & 31 to Kondo Decl.).

82.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 of BB Frame’s final 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 on or before those respective dates.) (Ex. 25 to Kondo Decl.). The day of BB Frame’s final payroll disbursements (December 20, 2019) was fifteen days after OSHA had opened the first of the five inspections of BB Frame worksites that precipitated these consolidated matters. (Ex. 25 to Kondo Decl.).

83.On March 12, 2019, less than four weeks before Quevedo-Garcia would cause Frame Q to be voluntarily dissolved, Quevedo-Garcia caused BB Frame to apply for a home improvement contractor license with the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General, Division of Consumer Affairs (DCA). (Ex. 8 to Kondo Decl.). About eleven weeks later, on May 29, 2019, DCA issued to BB Frame a New Jersey home improvement contractor license. (Ex. 23 to Kondo Decl.).

84.Prior to the OSHA inspections that precipitated these consolidated matters, BB Frame used its business checking account for BB Frame operations, including issuing payroll checks. Beginning November 25, 2019, that checking account had a consistently negative balance, causing the bank to force the account closed on March 25, 2020. (Ex. 28 to Kondo Decl.).

85.BB Frame did not make any payroll disbursements in 2020. (Exs. 1 & 25 to Kondo Decl.) In 2020, Quevedo-Garcia caused payroll disbursements for framing projects, including the projects involved in the last four of the five underlying inspections here, to be made by BM Frame. (Exs. 1, 11, 25 & 29 to Kondo Decl.).

86.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 over the course of the underlying inspections. (Ex. B to Sydenstricker Decl.; Ex. 4 to Kondo Decl.).

87.Quevedo-Garcia expressly and falsely held out to OSHA officials during the first of the underlying inspections that precipitated these consolidated cases that Frame Q was the company performing work at the inspected construction sites and that the workers were employees of Frame Q. (Sydenstricker Decl. ¶ 14). Quevedo-Garcia did not disclose to OSHA officials that Frame Q had been 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, OSHA held the false understanding that the employees present for the five underlying inspections were Frame Q employees. (Sydenstricker Decl. ¶ 12).

88.Prior to the issuance of the citations at issue here on June 2, 2020, OSHA concluded that BB Frame, not the dissolved Frame Q, was the corporate entity performing the construction work 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.

89.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 both BB Frame and Quevedo-Garcia. (Ex. 10 to Kondo Decl.).

90.There is no evidence that BB Frame had crippling debt when Quevedo-Garcia caused it to be dissolved, which occurred before the penalties proposed against BB Frame became final orders. The only evidence of BB Frame’s indebtedness at the time of its dissolution is its 2019 tax return which states that at the end of the tax year it had balance sheet liabilities totaling $21,754 (exclusive of a balance sheet liability of $27,500 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 identified that totaled $21,754 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.).

91.Quevedo dissolved BB Frame not because of overwhelming debt but rather to avoid collection of any of the OSHA penalties that had been proposed against BB Frame in the underlying citations (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.

92.On December 24, 2019, about three weeks after OSHA had opened the first of the five inspections involved in these consolidated cases, Quevedo-Garcia caused BM Frame to be formed, with Quevedo-Garcia owning 75% and one Hector F. Roca owning 25%.3 (Exs. 11 & 13 to Kondo Decl.) The declared planned activity of the new company was “miscellaneous construction & repair.” (Exs. 13 & 26 to Kondo Decl.).

93.Two days later, on December 26, 2019, Quevedo-Garcia caused to be filed with the State of New Jersey a certificate of alternate name that authorized BM Frame to do business as “BB Frame” even though BB Frame continued to exist as a New Jersey limited liability company. (Exs. 13 & 26 to Kondo Decl.).

94.About four weeks later, on January 23, 2020, BM Frame applied for a home improvement contractor license with the State of New Jersey. The application lists the name “BB Frame” as another “name[ ] under which [BM Frame] does business.” (Ex. 12 to Kondo Decl.).

95.On or about December 31, 2019, BM Frame opened a business checking account under the name “BM Frame LLC TA [i.e., “trading as”] BB Frame,” making an initial deposit of $500. (Ex. 27 to Kondo Decl.).

96.Beginning in January 2020, BM Frame’s checking account was used as the primary account for deposits and disbursements for construction projects. In the month of January 2020, there were eleven deposits made into the account that totaled $162,600 and 97 withdrawal transactions that totaled $135,318. (Exs. 27 & 30 to Kondo Decl.). 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 the sources of these deposits was substantially impeded by Quevedo Garcia’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.

97.Starting in January 2020 and continuing to early August 2020, the employees who supplied labor for construction projects performed by BB Frame and/or BM Frame were paid out of BM Frame’s business checking account. (Sydenstricker Decl. ¶¶ 14–21; Exs. 27, 29 & 30 to Kondo Decl.). From January 10, 2020 through August 16, 2020, BM Frame made payroll disbursements totaling $185,980 to eleven individuals. (Exs. 27, 29 & 30 to Kondo Decl.). Six of the eight employees who had been on BB Frame’s payroll through December 2019 received payroll disbursements in 2020 drawn on BM Frame’s business checking account. QuevedoGarcia’s sister, who was a 30% owner of BB Frame but had not received any payroll disbursements from BB Frame’s business checking account, receives payroll disbursements from BM Frame in 2020 that totaled $17,100. (Exs. 25 & 29 to Kondo Decl.).

98.In a letter from the attorney for Quevedo-Garcia dated November 12, 2020 to an attorney for the Secretary, the attorney 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).4 (Exs. 4 & 30 to Kondo Decl.).

99.In a letter from the attorney for Quevedo-Garcia to an attorney for the Secretary dated June 21, 2021, the attorney stated that “BM Frame is a closed business.” (Ex. F to Sec’y’s Mot. to Compel, July 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 in July 2021.

100.In Quevedo-Garcia’s verified interrogatory responses in November 2020, he falsely represented that he was not an “owner, member, partner, shareholder, officer, and/or director” of any companies other than Frame Q and BB Frame, both of which he declared in had been “closed.” (Ex. 4 to Kondo Decl.). In a later verified interrogatory response 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.).

101.BB Frame’s 2019 federal tax return reflects the company had a balance sheet liability of $27,500 for “capital stock” at both the beginning and the end of the tax year. (Ex. 7 to Kondo Decl.).

102.BB Frame never owned real property. (Exs. 4 & 7 to Kondo Decl.). Except for trucks, BB Frame never owned tools or equipment valued more than $200. BB Frame utilized three trucks in its business, at least one of which remained registered to Frame Q, although BB Frame depreciated multiple vehicles on its 2019 federal tax return (and BM Frame depreciated one vehicle on its 2020 federal tax return). (Exs. 4, 7 & 11 to Kondo Decl.; Sydenstricker Decl.).

103.BB Frame’s business checking account had a negative balance throughout the course of the five OSHA inspections that precipitated these consolidated matters. (Ex. 28 to Kondo Decl.).

104.BB Frame’s tax return for tax year 2019 reported gross receipts of $388,533 and total income of $297,087. The 2019 tax return reflects an ordinary business loss of $1,181, after making deductions from total income that included deducting $127,500 in compensation to QuevedoGarcia. (Ex. 7 to Kondo Decl.).

105.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 the source of the funds for this stated capitalization of BM Frame was substantially impeded by QuevedoGarcia’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.

106.In BM Frame’s federal tax return for tax year 2020, the company reported gross receipts of $426,451 and a total income of $235,066. The tax return reflects ordinary business income of $12,464, after making deductions from total income that included $75,000 in compensation to QuevedoGarcia. (The 25% owner of BM Frame, Hector Roca, received no compensation in 2020). (Ex. 11 to Kondo Decl.). Quevedo-Garcia reported his proportionate share of BM Frame’s ordinary business income of $12,464 in 2020 on his personal tax return for tax year 2020. (Ex. 1 to Kondo Decl.).

107.In a verified interrogatory response, Quevedo-Garcia stated that both Frame Q and BB Frame were “closed due to debt and insufficient income.” (Ex. 31 to Kondo Decl.).

108.Quevedo-Garcia caused BB Frame to be voluntarily dissolved at least in part to avoid collection of the proposed penalties of $2,004,225. Those proposed penalties later became final orders against BB Frame after BB Frame had been voluntarily dissolved. (Quevedo-Garcia Mot. ¶¶ 11–14; Anger Decl.). The Secretary’s ability to discover and present evidence relating to the reasons that Quevedo-Garcia determined to dissolve BB Frame was substantially impeded by QuevedoGarcia’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.

109.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.).

110.BB Frame held no formal meetings of its two members. (Ex. 31 to Kondo Decl.).

111.BB Frame maintained no operating agreement, by-laws, resolutions, amendments, meeting minutes, or meeting memoranda. (Exs. 4, 5 & 32 to Kondo Decl.).

112.Most of the contracts into which BB Frame entered with suppliers and other contractors were verbal agreements only. (Ex. 31 to Kondo Decl.).

113.As indicated supra in ¶ 12, Quevedo-Garcia and his sister Magda own a company called Q Properties LLC (Q Properties) that has its principal office at the Quevedo-Garcia Residence. Quevedo-Garcia owns 60% and Magda owns 40%. (Exs. 1, 3 & 14 to Kondo Decl.). Q Properties is in the business of renting and selling real estate, and in its 2020 federal tax return it reported receiving rents from residential real estate with the address 54 Lincoln Avenue, Cliffside Park, New Jersey. Quevedo-Garcia did not identify his ownership interest in Q Properties in his verified responses to two sets of interrogatories (responses dated Nov. 20, 2020 and Apr. 26, 2021), but rather in those responses he falsely represented that he did not have an ownership interest in any companies other than Frame Q and BB Frame. (Exs. 4 & 31 to Kondo Decl.). The attorney for Quevedo-Garcia later falsely represented to counsel for the Secretary in a letter dated June 21, 2021 that Q Properties “is not and was not owned” by Quevedo-Garcia. (Ex. F to Sec’y’s Mot. 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.)

114.Between August 2, 2018 and July 11, 2019, Quevedo-Garcia caused $84,600 to be transferred from BB Frame to Q Properties by issuing the following checks written on BB Frame’s business checking account (Ex. 33 to Kondo Decl.):

a.Check dated August 2, 2018 for $44,000. In the check’s “memo” line, QuevedoGarcia handwrote the words “Profits.”

b.Check dated August 6, 2018 for $9,600. In the check’s “memo” line, Quevedo-Garcia handwrote what appears to be the words “2 Months Deposit Rent and one month rent at” 54 Lincoln Avenue, Cliffside Park.

c.Check dated April 25, 2019 for $26,000. In the check’s “memo” line, Quevedo-Garcia handwrote the word “Profits 2018.”

d.Check dated July 1, 2019 for $7,000. The check’s “memo” line reflects the handwritten words “Monthly garage rent.”

e.Check dated July 11, 2019 for $8,000. The check’s “memo” line reflects the handwritten words “Rent for May & June garage at 54 Lincoln Ave Cliffside Park.”

115.The Secretary’s ability to discover and present evidence of greater detail regarding the reasons for these disbursements to Q Properties described 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.

116.After depleting BB Frame’s checking account in late 2019 and beginning to use BM Frame’s business checking account for deposits and disbursements relating to corporate construction activities, Quevedo-Garcia also began to use BM Frame’s checking account to make some payments that lack any apparent connection to the corporate framing work, as follows:

a.By check dated April 20, 2020, Quevedo-Garcia caused to be transferred to Q Properties the sum of $2,000. (Ex. 34 to Kondo. Decl.).

b.By five checks written between April and August 2020, Quevedo-Garcia caused to be transferred a total of $18,000 to Q Properties II (a company that is described supra in ¶ 13). (Ex. 35 to Kondo Decl.). One of those checks was for the sum of $11,000 and the memo line of the check bore the handwritten note “Loan to Q Properties II LLC.” Another check had no notation in the memo line. Three checks totaling $7,000 bore handwritten notations in their respective memo lines indicating they were for rent payments for real property in Fairview, New Jersey at [redacted]. (QuevedoGarcia testified in another Commission proceeding in September 2017 that he had resided at that address in Fairview, New Jersey [Ex. 17 at 8 to Kondo Decl.].)

c.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 (a company that is described supra at ¶ 14). Two checks that were payable to Q Nails totaled $5,900 and reflect the handwritten word “loan” in their memo lines. Another check payable to Q Nails in the sum of $3,000 has no entry in the memo line. The fourth check in the sum of $2,700 is payable to an individual (whose name not reflected in any other documentation of record) and in the memo line is handwritten the words “June rent for Q Nail Boutique.” (Ex. 36 to Kondo Decl.).

117.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.

118.While Quevedo-Garcia moved monies from BB Frame and BM Frame bank accounts to other family-owned businesses, and he also disbursed monies from those accounts for the benefit of those other companies, in some instances other family-owned businesses disbursed their funds for the apparent benefit of BB Frame, as described below.

a.The application fee for BB Frame’s home improvement license was paid in March 2019 by a check drawn on the bank account of Q Nails. (Ex. 8 to Kondo Decl.).

b.An electronic payment in the amount of $2,470.32 for BB Frame’s state payroll taxes for the fourth quarter of 2019 was made on January 30, 2020 from a bank account of Q Nails. (Ex. 37 to Kondo Decl.).

119.From June 2018 through August 7, 2020, Quevedo-Garcia caused himself to be 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.).

---

"

·third degree crimes of intent to evade tax liability of $87,927.05 for both tax years 2017 and 2018;

·third degree crime of failing to report $824,857.76 in income for tax year 2017;

·third degree crime of failing to report $985,892.40 in income for tax year 2018;

·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;

·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;

·first degree crime of money laundering respecting the sum of $5.7 million (as described in preceding bullet item).