Consumer Law Library

Holiday Magic, Inc

Volume 83 · 83 F.T.C. 1520

Citation
83 F.T.C. 1520
Docket
8834
Decision
1974-04-09
Document type
interlocutory order
Case type
procedural
Outcome
other
Commission counsel
Joseph S. Brownman and Stuart D. Cameron
Source
Original volume PDF
Original PDF
This decision as a PDF

Cite this decision

Holiday Magic, Inc, 83 F.T.C. 1520 (1974). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v083-0154

Report an error in this record (decision id v083-0154)

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 1 later FTC decisions

Cites

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

IN THE MATTER OF HOLIDAY MAGIC, INC., ET AL.

Docket 8834. Interlocutory Order, Apr. 9, 1974 Order denying motion of third party (1) to intervene by participation in oral argument before Commission, (2) requesting to be put on notice of all proceedings herein until final determination and (3) requesting that respondents be ordered to serve upon him any papers filed in case until finally determined. Appearances For the Commission: Joseph S. Brownman and Stuart D. Cameron. For the intervenor: Merle E. Davis, White Plains, New York. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE By motion filed Apr. 8, 1974, Mr. Lloyd Bethune, through his attorney and pursuant to Section 3.14 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, moves that he, as spokesman for a group of aggrieved persons, be allowed to intervene in the above-captioned proceedings for the purpose of participating in oral argument before the Commission as amicus curiae. In the alternative, he requests that he be put on notice of all proceedings in this matter until it is finally determined and that respondents be ordered to serve him with any papers filed with regard to their case until this matter is finally determined. Both parties oppose this motion.

Petitioner’s first request is based on the possibility that, as a person aggrieved by respondents’ actions, he “may have information which might shed some light on the legal arguments to be made.” The Commission finds this insufficient reason to warrant his participation in oral argument. With regard to petitioner’s second request, his need to be informed as to the progress of this matter, as described in his motion, can be satisfied by the Commission’s Office of Public Information, the Office of the Secretary and the public record. Accordingly, G C SERVICES CORP., ET AL. 1521 1521 Complaint It is ordered, That the aforesaid motion be, and it hereby is, denied with respect to both requests.

← 83 F.T.C. 1516 · 83 F.T.C. 1521 →