ORDER
On July 7, 2025, Respondent Malloy Automotive of Winchester, LLC d/b/a Malloy Toyota filed with the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment. Because the Board currently lacks a quorum, the Motion for Summary Judgment has been referred to me pursuant to Section
102.179 of the Board's Rules and Regulations. The Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied because it has not demonstrated that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.1This denial is without prejudice
1 The Respondent's argument that the Board's administrative law judges are unconstitutionally insulated from removal is without merit. There is no evidence that the Respondent suffered any harm from the administrative law judges' removal protections. See SJT Holdings, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 82, slip op. at 1 fn. 4 (2023) (citing Collins v. Yellen, 594 U.S. 220, 257-258 (2021), and Calcutt v. FDIC, 37 F.4th 293, 316 (6th Cir. 2022), rev'd per curiam on other grounds 598 U.S. 623 (2023)); K & R Contractors, LLC v. Keene, 86 F.4th 135, 148-
1
~`~'~,~,l~~1 c~~~-~---~--
2
to the Respondent's right to present its arguments to the administrative law judge and before the Board on any exceptions that may be filed to the judge's decision, if appropriate. Dated, Washington, D.C., August 22, 2025.
__________________________
Robert A. Giannasi
Chief, Administrative Law Judge
practice cases will be conducted by administrative law judges. See Board's Rules and Regulations Sec. 102.34.
2