Consumer Law LibrarySearchBy decadeBy respondentBy topicBy outcomeDataAbout

Cavanagh Communities Corporation, Etc

Volume 86 · 86 F.T.C. 1192

Citation
86 F.T.C. 1192
Docket
9055
Decision
1975-11-18
Document type
petition ruling
Case type
consumer protection
Statutes
FTC Act (section 5)
Outcome
other
Commission counsel
Jeffrey Tureck, David Keehn and Pamela B. Stuart
Respondent counsel
Philip F. Zeidman, Brownstein, Zeidman Schomer Chase Wash., D
Source
Original volume PDF
Original PDF
This decision as a PDF

Cite this decision

Cavanagh Communities Corporation, Etc, 86 F.T.C. 1192 (1975). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v086-0144

Report an error in this record (decision id v086-0144)

Order status: unknown. Sunset may be extended by the latest qualifying federal-court complaint alleging an order violation; complaints, dismissal/appeal outcomes, and respondent-specific extensions are not fully tracked.

Cited by 0 later FTC decisions

Cites

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

IN THE MATTER OF CAVANAGH COMMUNITIES CORPORATION, ET AL.

Docket 9U.S5. Order, Nov. , 197.5 Denial of petition for extraordinary review and application for stay of time to answer. Appearances For the Commission: Jeffrey Tureck, David Keehn and Pamela B. Stuart.

For the respondents: Philip F. Zeidman, Brownstein, Zeidman Schomer Chase Wash., D.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY REVIEW AND Application FOR STAY OF TIME TO ANSWER Respondents have petitioned for "extraordinary review" of the administrative law judge s Oct. 24 , 1975, order denying respondents motion for a more definite statement of those allegations in the complaint with respect to which the Commission may subsequently bring a'1 action for consumer redress pursuant to Section 19 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Following denial of the motion for a more definite statement, respondents filed an application for a determination by the administrative law judge allowing an interlocutory appeal, which the law judge denied on Nov. 3 1975. We have considered respondents' petition and have found nothing therein which would warrant departing from the procedural requirements of Section 3.23 of the Commission s Rules of Practice or . directing a certification of the matter pursuant to Section 3.22(a). Accordingly, It is ordered That the aforesaid petition for extraordinary review be and it hereby is, denied.

It is farther ordered That respondents' application for a stay of the time to answer the complaint be, and it hereby is, denied. 119B Order

← 86 F.T.C. 1106 · 86 F.T.C. 1193 →