FTC v. Cinderella Career and Finishing Schools, Inc., 21118.
Decision Date | 12 March 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 21118.,21118. |
Citation | 404 F.2d 1308 |
Parties | FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION et al., Appellants, v. CINDERELLA CAREER AND FINISHING SCHOOLS, INC., et al., Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Asst. Atty. Gen. Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., for appellants. Acting Asst. Atty. Gen. Carl Eardley, Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., Alan S. Rosenthal and Harvey L. Zuckman, Attorneys, Department of Justice, were on the brief for appellant. Messrs. Morton Hollander, Attorney, Department of Justice, and Harold D. Rhynedance, Jr., Attorney, Federal Trade Commission, also entered appearances for appellants.
Mr. Alan Y. Cole, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Herbert J. Gildenhorn and Harvey J. Rothberg, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellees.
Before McGOWAN, TAMM and ROBINSON, Circuit Judges.
This case presents, precisely and concisely, the question whether the Federal Trade Commission is authorized to issue a factual news release concerning pending adjudicatory proceedings before it.
Appellee corporations operate and grant franchises for the operation of schools offering various courses in modeling, fashion merchandising, charm, and self-improvement. The individual appellee is the controlling stockholder of two of the corporations and the principal stockholder of the third appellee corporation.
Following an investigation, the appellant Federal Trade Commission, on February 13, 1967, issued a complaint (Docket No. 8729) against appellees, stating that the Commission, "having reason to believe" that the appellees had violated the Federal Trade Commission Act by engaging in unfair or deceptive practices and the use of false and misleading advertising in the operation of their business, was initiating a proceeding in respect thereto "in the public interest." Thereafter, the complaint enumerated the specific details constituting the charge and set forth quotations from the advertising alleged to be deceptive. The complaint identified the alleged falsities in the advertising, described the conduct claimed to constitute unfair or deceptive practices, and concluded with the customary allegation that the identified courses of conduct were in violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.1
This complaint was mailed to appellees on February 17, 1967. On February 20, 1967, appellees, "mindful and aware of the FTC's practice of issuing news releases and the adverse effects resulting therefrom,"2 petitioned the Commission to defer the issuance of any news release with respect to this proceeding, id est, Docket No. 8729, until after a final adjudication was had in the proceeding. On March 1, 1967, the Commission notified appellees that their petition had been denied, noting that the contents of the complaint which had been issued were in the public domain. The Commission furnished appellees at that time with a copy of the proposed news release and advised appellees that the news release would be issued on March 3.3
On March 2, the appellees commenced the present action by filing a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in which they sought a restraining order against the issuance of the news release. The motion for the restraining order was denied by a District Court judge on March 2; and on March 3, the Commission promulgated a news release announcing and describing the issuance of the complaint against appellees. As a result, accounts of the complaint appeared in at least two Washington newspapers.
On March 22, 1967, appellees filed in the District Court an amended and supplemental complaint, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against the Commission's issuance of further news releases with respect to the proceedings in Docket No. 8729 and requested the court to issue a preliminary injunction retraining any such action by the Commission. Appellees charged, in affidavits supporting the complaint, that the Commission's news releases resulted in cancellation of courses by students, inquiries from financial institutions and others with whom appellees were doing business and were generally harmful to appellees' business. On March 31, the Commission filed in the District Court a cross motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
At a hearing held in the District Court on April 13, 1967, the Commission's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied. At the same time, the preliminary injunction requested by appellees was granted, and the Commission thereby was restrained from issuing any news release in Docket No. 8729 "until the Commission, after a full adjudication of the case, has issued either a cease and desist order or an order dismissing the Complaint, pending the final hearing and determination of this cause."4 The District Court judge, in the findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting the injunction, found that the issuance of the news releases prior to final adjudication constituted, or gave the appearance of constituting, a prejudgment of the issues and that in the event of ultimate adjudication in appellees' favor by the Commission, the damage suffered by them through the news releases would be beyond "repair or remedy." The court also expressed "grave doubt" of the Commission's authority to issue the releases prior to final adjudication, found irreparable injury to appellees, and defined the Commission's duty in "quasi-judicial proceedings" to require the avoidance of prejudgment or the appearance of pre-judgment.
The Commission seeks before this court to reverse the District Court's order enjoining the Commission's issuance of press releases and denying its motion to dismiss the complaint.
At the threshold of this case, we are confronted with the question of whether we have jurisdiction to consider the entire case on the merits or whether our review is confined at this time to the propriety of the issuance of the injunction. The pleadings before us are at best ambiguous as to whether the Commission has endeavored to appeal the denial by the District Court of its motion to dismiss the complaint. However, the teaching of Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp., 311 U.S. 282, 61 S.Ct. 229, 85 L.Ed. 189 (1940), indicates that we do have the authority in a case involving an appeal as of right from the granting of an injunction to take note of the denial by the trial court of a motion to dismiss. While it is of course true that in Deckert there was no question but that the defendants had sought to appeal from the order denying the motion to dismiss as well as from the granting of an injunction, we feel, nevertheless, that the Court's language in that case minimizes the necessity of a purely formal appeal of an otherwise non-appealable order. We conclude, therefore, that we have the authority to dispose of the case on its merits and that sound judicial administration requires us to avoid any subsequent unnecessary proceedings in the District Court. Obviously, if we conclude that the motion to dismiss was improperly denied, the question of the propriety of the injunction is moot.
Congress, in 1914, enacted the Federal Trade Commission Act.5 The then broad purpose of the Act was to prevent unfair methods of competition in their inception. Federal Trade Comm. v. Raladam Co., 316 U.S. 149, 162, 62 S.Ct. 966, 86 L.Ed. 1336 (1941). By the Wheeler-Lea amendment,6 Congress, in 1938, broadened section 5 of the Act and extended the authority of the Commission to eliminate unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce without regard to competition. H.R.REP.No.1613, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 1, 3 (1937).
Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act7 provides, inter alia, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Consumer Protection Div. Office of Atty. Gen. v. Consumer Pub. Co., Inc.
... ... 757, 99 L.Ed.2d 1107 (1955); F.T.C. v. Cinderella Career and Finishing Schools, 404 F.2d 1308, 1315 ... ...
-
Nec Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce
...omitted). A general claim of agency viewpoint or policy bias is not actionable. See, e.g., FTC v. Cinderella Career & Finishing Schools, Inc., 404 F.2d 1308, 1315 (D.C.Cir. 1968) (Cinderella I), (refusing to enjoin Federal Trade Commission from conducting hearing on plaintiff's alleged unfa......
-
Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
...a pending case do not per se deprive a party of a fair proceeding. See 5 U.S.C. § 554(d) (C) (1976); cf. FTC v. Cinderella Career & Finishing Schools, 404 F.2d 1308, 1315 (D.C.Cir.1968) (some mixing of adjudicatory and prosecutorial functions is not a denial of due process). Indeed, it is l......
-
Expeditions Unlimited Aquatic Enterprises, Inc. v. Smithsonian Inst.
...sub nom Butz v. Economou, 429 U.S. 1089, 97 S.Ct. 1097, 51 L.Ed.2d 534 (1977).9 See Federal Trade Commission v. Cinderella Career and Finishing Schools, Inc., 131 U.S.App.D.C. 331, 404 F.2d 1308 (1968), where this court, in a situation not unlike that in Economou, refused to enjoin the Fede......
-
Adjudication
...process. See, e.g. , Kennecott Copper Corp. v. FTC, 467 F.2d 67, 79 (10th Cir. 1972); FTC v. Cinderella Career & Finishing Sch., Inc., 404 F.2d 1308, 1315 (D.C. Cir. 1968). 19. See Section A(2), infra . 20. 5 U.S.C. § 554(d). 234 FTC Practice and Procedure Manual 1. Ex Parte Communication O......
-
Table of Cases
.................................................................................. 209 FTC v. Cinderella Career & Finishing Sch., Inc., 404 F.2d 1308 (D.C. Cir. 1968) ................................................................... 233 FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 380 U.S. 374 (1965) ...........
-
Three Options for Reforming Part 3 Administrative Litigation at the Federal Trade Commission
...333 U.S. 683 (1948); Kennecott Copper Corp. v. FTC, 467 F.2d 67, 79 (10th Cir. 1972); Cinderella Career & Finishing Schs., Inc. v. FTC, 404 F.2d 1308, 1315 (D.C. Cir. 1968)); Rosch, supra note 18, at 12 nn.33–34 (citing the same cases). 71 See, e.g. , Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Acting Chairman, ......
-
Unearthing the Lost History of Seminole Rock
...case that borrows language from Seminole Rock in support of giving deference); FTC v. Cinderella Career & Finishing Sch., Inc., 404 F.2d 1308, 1320 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (citing Seminole Rock and Norwegian Nitrogen in a statutory interpretation case for the proposition that the agency's "consist......