Consumer Law LibrarySearchBy decadeBy respondentBy topicBy outcomeDataAbout

The Raymond Lee Organization, Inc

Volume 88 · 88 F.T.C. 378

Citation
88 F.T.C. 378
Docket
9045
Decision
1976-09-13
Document type
interlocutory order
Case type
consumer protection
Outcome
other
Commission counsel
Harriet G. Mulhern
Respondent counsel
M. I. Lewis, Lans, Feinberg & Cohen, New York City for The Raymond Lee Organization, Inc. and Raymond Lee. M. C. Michael, Schwenke & Devine, New York City for Lawrence Peska
Source
Original volume PDF
Original PDF
This decision as a PDF

Cite this decision

The Raymond Lee Organization, Inc, 88 F.T.C. 378 (1976). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v088-0040

Report an error in this record (decision id v088-0040)

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 0 later FTC decisions

Cites

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

IN THE MATTER OF THE RAYMOND LEE ORGANIZATION, INC., ET AL. Docket. 9045. Order, Sept. 13, 1976 Denial of motion for joinder of another party. Appearances For the Commission: Harriet G. Mulhern.

For the respondents: M. I. Lewis, Lans, Feinberg & Cohen, New York City for The Raymond Lee Organization, Inc. and Raymond Lee. M. C. Michael, Schwenke & Devine, New York City for Lawrence Peska. ORDER DENYING Motion FOR JOINDER OF ANOTHER PARTY This matter is before us on the administrative law judge’s certification of a motion filed by respondents The Raymond Lee Organization, Ine., and Raymond Lee to join as a respondent in this proceeding Lawrence Peska Associates, Inc. The ALJ recommends that the motion be denied for the following reasons: (1) addition of a new party would substantially delay the trial of this proceeding, which is now scheduled to commence on September 20, 1976; and (2) an order entered against Lawrence Peska, if warranted by the record, would provide the public “substantial protection.””! We agree with the ALJ that respondents have failed to make a showing sufficient to warrant the addition of a new party on the eve of trial. Accordingly, It is ordered, That the aforesaid motion be, and it hereby is, denied. Commissioner Dole not participating by reason of absence. 1 Order (1) Denying Respondents’ (“RLO's”) Motion for Reconsideration of Motion for Extensions of Time or Alternatively for Permission to Appeal to Commission and (2) Certifying to the Commission RLO’s Motion for Joinder of Another Party, at 5-6.

KAUFMAN CARPET CO., INC., ET AL. 879 879 Complaint

← 88 F.T.C. 368 · 88 F.T.C. 379 →