Ford Motor Company

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

IN THE MATTER OF FORD MOTOR COMPANY Docket 9105. Interlocutory Order, Nov. 16, 1978 ORDER DIRECTING ADMINISTRATIVE Law JUDGE To FILE RECOMMENDATION AND SETTING DATE FOR RESPONDENT’S ' ANSWER On November 7, 1978, complaint counsel filed with the administrative law judge (ALJ) a Motion Requesting the Commission To Seek Injunctive Relief Under Section 13(b) Of The Federal Trade Commission Act. By order dated the same day, the ALJ certified the motion to the Commission because he lacked authority to rule on the request. However, the ALJ did not include the recommendation referred to in Rule 3.22(a). By motion of November 13, 1978, respondent Ford Motor Company seeks a referral of complaint counsel’s motion to the ALJ or, alternatively, an extension of Ford’s time to respond to the motion to and until December 1, 1978. While recommendations have not invariably accompanied certifications in the past, and we have not insisted on receiving them, the Commission believes that the law judge in the great majority of certified motions has a unique and valuable perspective which would assist the Commission in its consideration of such motions. In directing the ALJ to file a recommendation, we do not mean to require that he duplicate the inquiry which the Commission itself must conduct before initiating suit under Section 13(b). Rather, our intention is to afford the ALJ an: opportunity to facilitate the Commission’s disposition of the motion by sharing any relevant observations he might possess on the basis of the proceedings to date. Where hearings have not yet commenced, as in this case, the ALJ’s assistance to the Commission may be limited to a forecast of the duration of the administrative proceeding, enabling the Commission to weigh the need for interim relief. Thus, the scope of the ALJ’s consideration of the certified motion will necessarily be a function of the extent to which he is familiar with the issues and any evidence bearing upon the motion.

Because a motion for a preliminary injunction is clearly beyond the ALJ’s authority we see no need for the ALJ to afford respondent an opportunity to comment on the motion to certify. However, we will extend Ford’s time for filing an answer to the motion for a preliminary injunction.

It is ordered, ‘That the administrative law judge file his reeommen- 846 Interlocutory Order dation with respect to the motion for a preliminary injunction with the Commission by November 27, 1978.

It is further ordered, That respondent’s time for filing an answer to the motion for a preliminary injunction with the Commission be extended to and until November 27, 1978. Modifying Order 92 F.T.C.