Ford Motor Company

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

IN THE MATTER OF .

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

Docket 9073. Interlocutory Order, Mar. 16, 1978 Denial of a respondent’s application for interlocutory review of ALJ's denial to stay the proceedings and to consider other motions. ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW On March 15, 1978, respondent Francis Ford, Inc. filed a document styled “Emergency Petition for Review to the Federal Trade Commission” which we will treat as an application for interlocutory review of the ALJ’s ruling on March 13, 1978, denying respondent’s motion to stay the proceedings and to consider other motions.’ The ALJ also denied a request to certify his order to the Commission under Section 3.23(b) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. 3.23(b). ;

Section 3.23(a) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice specifies the limited situations in which an interlocutory appeal from a ruling of the ALJ will be entertained in the absence of certification by the ALJ under Section 3.23(b).? Respondent has advanced no basis on which an appeal will lie under one of the enumerated subsections. Even if the order were subject to interlocutory review under Section 3.23, it would be reversible only if there had been a clear abuse of discretion by the ALJ. Kellogg Co., et al., 83 F.T.C. 1956 (1974) and 86 F.T.C. 650 (1975). Insofar as the respondent seeks a delay of the proceedings, the Commission has repeatedly ruled that matters of scheduling are within the sound discretion of the law judge. See, eg., Maremont Corp., 17 F.T.C. 1654 (1970); American Home Products, Dkt. 8918, Order of August 18, 1977 Denying Application * Respond bmitted the following motions to the ALJ: Motion for E: y Determination on Motion to Withdraw Matter from Adjudication for the Purpose of Considering Such Respondent's Proposed Consent. Agreement and on its Motion in Opposition to Withdrawal of Ford Motor Company and Ford Motor Credit Company from this pr ding or in the Alternative to Join Such Respondents as Third Party Respondents; Motion to Withdraw the Matter from Adjudication for the Purpose of Considering Respondent's Proposed Consent Agreement, for Certification of Settlement Proposal, and for a Stay of the Proceedings; Motion in Opposition to Withd ! of Ford Motor Company and Ford Motor Credit Company from Proceeding or ‘in the Alternative to Join Such Respondents as Third Party Respondents. - ® Section 3.23(a) of the Commiasion’s Rules of Practice provides that “The Commission may, in its discretion, entertain interlocutory appeals where a ruling of the Administrative Law Judge: (1) requires the discl e of the C i ds or the of an official or I of the C i P to §3.26; (2) requires the appearance of other government officials pursuant to §3.37; (3) suspends an attorney from participation i in a particular proceeding pursuant to §3.42(d); or (4) grants or denies an application for inter Pp to the provisions of §3.14." FORD MOTOR CO., ET AL. 503 502 Interlocutory Order for Review at 2 [90 F.T.C. 148]. Insofar as respondent requests a review of the ALJ’s refusal to rule on respondent’s other motions, its request is premature.

It is therefore ordered, That the application is denied. i o) cd Interlocutory Order 91 F.