Hertz Corporation

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

IN THE MATTER OF HERTZ CORPORATION, ET AI.

Docket .90;1.. Order, Sept. , 197.5 Denial of application of Investor Protcctive League, Inc., for review of administrative law judge s order denying its motion to intervene. Appearances For the Commission: Thomas F. McNerney, William J. Murphy III and Charles G. Brown II.

For the respondents: Jerome Schestack, Schnader, Harrson, Segal & Lewis and Iruing Kagan Philadelphia, Pa., for Hertz Corporation. Alan S. Ward, Baker, Hostetler, Frost Towers Wash., D.C. for Avic Rent- Car System, Inc. Michael P. Sullivan, Gray, Plant, Mooty & Anderson Minneapolis, Minn. J. Wallace Adair, Howery, Simon, Baker & Murchison Wash., D. C. and Robert W. Bird Minneapolis, Minn., all for National Car Rental System, Inc.

ORDER DENYING Application FOR REVIEW The administrative law judge, on July 23, 1975, denied a motion to intervene filed by Investor Protective League, 1nc. Investor pursuant to Section 3. 14 of the rules of practice. On Aug. 6, 1975 Investor filed an application for review of the law judge s order under Section a.23(a).

Before the Commission wil permit intervention "it must be demonstrated that (1) the persons seeking such intervention desire to raise substantial issues of law or fact which would not otherwise be properly raised or argued, and (2) the issues thus raised are of sufficient importance and immediacy to warrant an additional expenditure of the Commission s limited resources on a necessarily longer and more complicated proceedir'g in that case, when considered in light of H08 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Complaint H6 F.

other important matters pending before the Commission Firestorw Tire Rubber Co. 77 F. C. 1666, 1669 (1970). Investor is apparently a membership corporation consisting of consumer renters of automobiles from respondents. In support of its motion before the administrative law judge, Investor claimed that it had filed a class action against respondents in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Docket No. 75 Civil 940) and that the Commission s determination will have a significant impact on Investor s lawsuit. Investor also noted that if it were made a party to the proceedings before the Commission it would have available evidence before the Commission for use in its private lawsuit. Finally, Investor suggested that it has an interest in "the type . of relief granted.

Investor, however, has failed to show that it wil raise before the Commission any issues, substantial or otherwise, that would not otherwise be properly raised or argued. The Commission, therefore cannot see any reason why it should exercise its discretion to review the law judge s order. Accordingly, It is ordered That the application of Investor Protective League Inc., for review of the order of the administrative law judge denying its motion to intervene be, and it hereby is, denied.