Soundtrack Chevell Industries, Inc

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

THE MATTER OF SOUNDTRACK CHEVELL INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL. fu;ket 8998. Order, May, 1976 Denial of motions to dismiss the complaint a. to Lonnie Temple and Gene Temple. Appearances For the Commission: Richard Ii Gat,eley and John J. Hemrik. For the respondents: Thompson, Knight, Simrrns Bullion Dallas Tex. for Soundtrack ChevelJ Industries, Inc., William F. Temple and Helen Temple.

ORDER DEJ\Y'ING MOTIO!\S TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AS TO LONNIE TEMPLE A"IJ GENE TEMPLE By order of March 16, 1976, the Commission withdrew this matter from adjudication for settement purposes as to respondents Soundtrack ChevelJ Industries, Inc., William F. Temple, and Helen Temple and directed that complaint counsel file a response to the motions of respondents Lonnie Temple and Gene Temple asking that the complaint be dismissed as to them.

Respondents Lonnie Temple and Gene Temple contend, in Jetters they have transmitted, that the complaint should be dismissed as to them because they did not exercise control over the corporate respondent' s policies, and are not personally responsible for the acts and practices alleged in the complaint. Complaint counsel respond that movants' contention runs counter to the allegations of the complaint that they, in conjunction with other respondents, formulated the policies and directed and controlled the acts and practices of the corporate respondent, raising factual issues which should most appropriately be resolved in the pending administrative hearing. In an order of April 22, 1975, the Commission denied the motions of Lonnie Temple and certain other respondents to dismiss the complaint as to them. Lonnie Temple s motion, like the ones now before the Commission, asserted that he was not responsible for the acts and practices alleged in the complaint. The Commission stated that nothing raised in the motions before it had altered the Commission s original reason to believe a proceeding as to those respondents would be in the public interest.

Respondent Lonnie Temple has made no further showing, nor has respondent Gene Temple made any showing, sufficient to dismiss the complaint as to them. Their bare allegations, without more, that they did not exercise control over the corporate respondent' s policies and are Order 87 F.

not personally responsible for the acts and practices alleged in the complaint, simply raise issues of fact going to the merits of the complaint, to be resolved in the administrative proceeding. Cf. Kopers Co. Inc. 75 F. C. 1065 (1969). Furthermore, as the Commission reiterated in Freight Liquidatos D. 8937 (Feb. 25, 1975) (85 F. 274J individuals have been held liable under the Federal Trade Commission Act when they have exercised no control over the policies of the corporate respondent itself, but were involved in implementing an ilega! scheme. See also Amerman Chinchila Corp. 76 F. C. 1016 1025 (1969) (individual respondent who "cooperated in and effectuated the acts, policies and practices of the corporate respondent" held liable). The Commission expresses no opinion at this time, however, as to any liability of movants; any determinations on the merits of the complaint must be based upon the record developed at the administrative proceeding.

Accordingly, the motions to dismiss the complaint as to Lonnie Temple and Gene Temple are denied.

It is so ordered.

HA;\G lips SPORTSWEAR LTD., ET AL. 121 1251 Complaint