C.F.R. » Title 16 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION › SUBCHAPTER A—ORGANIZATION, PROCEDURES AND RULES OF PRACTICE › PART 3—RULES OF PRACTICE FOR ADJUDICATIVE PROCEEDINGS › Subpart C—Prehearing Procedures; Motions; Interlocutory Appeals; Summary Decisions

16 C.F.R. § 3.23

Interlocutory appeals

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Appeals without a determination by the Administrative Law Judge. (1) The Commission may, in its discretion, entertain interlocutory appeals where a ruling of the Administrative Law Judge:

(i) Requires the disclosure of records of the Commission or another governmental agency or the appearance of an official or employee of the Commission or another governmental agency pursuant to § 3.36, if such appeal is based solely on a claim of privilege: Provided, that the Administrative Law Judge shall stay until further order of the Commission the effectiveness of any ruling, whether or not appeal is sought, that requires the disclosure of nonpublic Commission minutes, Commissioner circulations, or similar documents prepared by the Commission, an individual Commissioner, or the Office of the General Counsel;

(ii) Suspends an attorney from participation in a particular proceeding pursuant to § 3.42(d); or

(iii) Grants or denies an application for intervention pursuant to the provisions of § 3.14.

(2) Appeal from such rulings may be sought by filing with the Commission an application for review within 3 days after notice of the Administrative Law Judge's ruling. An answer may be filed within 3 days after the application for review is filed. The Commission upon its own motion may enter an order staying compliance with a discovery demand authorized by the Administrative Law Judge pursuant to § 3.36 or placing the matter on the Commission's docket for review. Any order placing the matter on the Commission's docket for review will set forth the scope of the review and the issues which will be considered and will make provision for the filing of memoranda of law if deemed appropriate by the Commission.

(b) Other interlocutory appeals. A party may request the Administrative Law Judge to determine that a ruling involves a controlling question of law or policy as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the ruling may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation or subsequent review will be an inadequate remedy. An answer may be filed within 3 days after the request for determination is filed. The Administrative Law Judge shall issue a ruling on the request for determination within 3 days of the deadline for filing an answer. The party may file an application for review with the Commission within 1 day after notice that the Administrative Law Judge has issued the requested determination or 1 day after the deadline has passed for the Administrative Law Judge to issue a ruling on the request for determination and the Administrative Law Judge has not issued his or her ruling. An answer may be filed within 3 days after the application for review is filed.

(c) The application for review shall attach the ruling from which appeal is being taken and any other portions of the record on which the moving party relies. Neither the application for review nor the answer shall exceed 2,500 words. This word count limitation includes headings, footnotes, and quotations, but does not include the cover, table of contents, table of citations or authorities, glossaries, statements with respect to oral argument, any addendums containing statutes, rules or regulations, any certificates of counsel, proposed form of order, and any attachment required by § 3.45(e). The Commission may order additional briefing on the application.

(d) Ruling on application for review. Within 3 days after the deadline for filing an answer, the Commission will determine whether to grant the application for review. The denial of an application shall not constitute a ruling on the merits of the ruling that is the subject of the application.

(e) Proceedings not stayed. An application for review and appeal hereunder shall not stay proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge unless the Judge or the Commission shall so order.

[74 FR 1822, Jan. 13, 2009, as amended at 80 FR 15160, Mar. 23, 2015]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1972–2010 · leading case: Borden, Inc., a Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 495 F.2d 785 (7th Cir. 1974).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Borden, Inc., a Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 495 F.2d 785 (7th Cir. 1974). “23, 16 C.F.R. § 3.23 . Borden commenced this action on May 8, 1973, alleging in Count I of its complaint that the “failure to provide the required notice and opportunity to submit information during the investigation was a clear and substantial breach of the requirements of the…”
Mader v. United States, 619 F.3d 996 (8th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “" 16 C.F.R. § 3.23 (emphasis added). Section 3553(b)(1) of Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 requires the Government Accountability Office to notify the "Federal agency involved" "[w]ithin one day after the receipt of a protest.”
Stand. Oil Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 475 F. Supp. 1261 (N.D. Ind. 1979). · cites it 2× “16 C.F.R. § 3.23 (b). Once the Commission has completed its review of the adjudicative proceedings, it decides whether cease-and-desist orders should be issued for those actions which are proved to be in violation of a statute.”
Law Offices of Seymour M. Chase, P.C. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., 843 F.2d 517 (D.C. Cir. 1988). “101 (1987) (appeal to Securities Exchange Commission from an AU’s suspension of “an attorney from participation in a particular proceeding” is an “interlocutory appeal”); 17 C.”
Atl. Richfield Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 398 F. Supp. 1 (S.D. Tex. 1975). “16 C.F.R. § 3.23 (b). Once the Commission has completed its review of the adjudicative proceedings, it decides whether cease-and-desist orders should be issued for those actions which are proved to be in violation of a statute.”
Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 464 F. Supp. 302 (C.D. Cal. 1979). · cites it 2× “See 16 C.F.R. § 3.23 (b). Section 3.23(b) provides that interlocutory review by the Commission rests with the Commission’s discretion.”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Anderson, 631 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir. 1979). “Because Gulf and Exxon elected to comply with their subpoenas, they were not named as parties in the enforcement action.”
Coca-Cola Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 342 F. Supp. 670 (N.D. Ga. 1972). “Plaintiffs sought review of the hearing examiner’s order by filing an application for permission to file an interlocutory appeal under the FTC’s Rules of Practice ( 16 C.F.R. § 3.23 ) or, in the alternative, to treat the motions as certified to the Commission by the hearing…”
City of Battle Creek v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 481 F. Supp. 538 (W.D. Mich. 1979). “14 (see 16 C.F.R. 3.23(a)(3)). The plaintiffs have neither pursued nor exhausted this two-step process available to them.”
— 16 C.F.R. § 3.23(a)(3) — 1 case
City of Battle Creek v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 481 F. Supp. 538 (W.D. Mich. 1979). “14 (see 16 C.F.R. 3.23(a)(3)). The plaintiffs have neither pursued nor exhausted this two-step process available to them.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.