Chrysler Corporation

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

IN THE MATTER OF CHRYSLER CORPORATION, ET AL.

Docket 9072. Interlocutory Order, Nov. 9, 1978 ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR LEAVE To APPEAL On October 27, 1978, respondents Chrysler Corporation and Chrysler Credit Corporation moved before the administrative law judge (ALJ) that the hearings in this matter be adjourned until March 1, 1979, to afford them an opportunity to solicit the cooperation of many of their independently owned dealers in the execution of the proposed settlement. Complaint counsel joined in the respondents’ motion to adjourn. The ALJ, by order issued on October 30, 1978, declined to cancel the hearings in the absence of an assurance that respondents have signed or shortly would sign a consent agreement which is binding upon them. Respondents subsequently filed an application with the Commission for leave to appeal, arguing that the ALJ has abused his discretion in denying their motion.

Although settlement in this case is not a “certainty,” both sides have asserted that there is a “strong likelihood” that agreement will be reached, and under such circumstances the request of the contending parties that the proceedings be stayed is highly compelling. Nevertheless, we cannot find an abuse of discretion in the law judge’s contrary determination not to adjourn the hearings for a period of four months, at whick time hearings might have to resume if respondents’ dealers (and apparently, as a result, respondents) were to prove unwilling to accede to the proposed settlement. The law judge possesses broad discretion in scheduling a trial so as to facilitate a prompt resolution of the issues, either through an adjudicated order or a negotiated settlement. To this end, the ALJ has full authority to postpone scheduled hearings so that parties to a proposed settlement may confer, under the supervision of the law judge, with third parties whose cooperation is deemed necessary for the success of the settlement. But it is the law judge, not the Commission, who is best positioned to weigh the length of the delay against the prospects for third party approval. While the parties have made out a strong case for postponement in this instance, the _Commission will not disturb an ALJ’s decision to proceed with trial or postpone hearings in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. Accordingly, It is ordered, That respondents’ application for leave to appeal is denied.

837 Complaint