Consumer Law LibrarySearchBy decadeBy respondentBy topicBy outcomeDataAbout

Cocoa-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc

Volume 92 · 92 F.T.C. 323

Citation
92 F.T.C. 323
Docket
8992
Decision
1978-08-11
Document type
interlocutory order
Case type
procedural
Outcome
other
Relief
other
Source
Original volume PDF
Original PDF
This decision as a PDF

Cite this decision

Cocoa-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc, 92 F.T.C. 323 (1978). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v092-0017

Report an error in this record (decision id v092-0017)

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 COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC. Docket 8992. Interlocutory Order, August 11, 1978 This order grants complaint counsel’s motion for reconsideration of a previous Commission denial of their request for an extension of time to file a brief. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION On August 9, 1978, Complaint Counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Request for Eleven Day Extension of Time in Which to File Appeal Brief. Their initial request was denied on the ground that general allegations of burden are not sufficient for an extension of time.

Since complaint counsel’s Motion for Reconsideration now cites with specificity their obligations in. Beltone Electronics, Dkt. 8928 and Amway Corp., Dkt. 9023, that defect is cured. The Commission is aware of the time and work burdens associated with both cases and finds that those obligations are sufficient to justify this limited extension.

It is the Commission’s intention that the time limitations set forth in Rule 3.52 are to be maintained. General allegations of burden, without more, will not suffice for an extension of time. Furthermore, specificity alone.will not always carry the day. The Commission must be convinced that the burdens which counsel plead are genuine and not brought on by counsel’s own lack of diligence. Accordingly, It is ordered, That complaint counsel’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Request for Eleven Day Extension of Time in Which to File Appeal Brief be, and the same hereby is, granted, and complaint counsel are given to and including August 22, 1978, within which to file an appeal brief.

Modifying Order 92 FTC.

← 92 F.T.C. 310 · 92 F.T.C. 324 →