16 C.F.R. § 3.24

Summary decisions

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

(a) Procedure. (1) Any party may move, with or without supporting affidavits, for a summary decision in the party's favor upon all or any part of the issues being adjudicated. The motion shall be accompanied by a separate and concise statement of the material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue for trial. Counsel in support of the complaint may so move at any time after 20 days following issuance of the complaint and any respondent may so move at any time after issuance of the complaint. Any such motion by any party, however, shall be filed in accordance with the scheduling order issued pursuant to § 3.21, but in any case at least 30 days before the date fixed for the hearing.

(2) Any other party may, within 14 days after service of the motion, file opposing affidavits. The opposing party shall include a separate and concise statement of those material facts as to which the opposing party contends there exists a genuine issue for trial, as provided in § 3.24(a)(3). The parties may file memoranda of law in support of, or in opposition to, the motion consistent with § 3.22(c). If a party includes in any such brief or memorandum information that has been granted in camera status pursuant to § 3.45(b) or is subject to confidentiality protections pursuant to a protective order, the party shall file 2 versions of the document in accordance with the procedures set forth in § 3.45(e). If the Commission determines that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact regarding liability or relief, it shall issue a final decision and order. A summary decision, interlocutory in character and in compliance with the procedures set forth in § 3.51(c), may be rendered on the issue of liability alone although there is a genuine issue as to relief.

(3) Affidavits shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. The Commission may permit affidavits to be supplemented or opposed by depositions, answers to interrogatories, or further affidavits. When a motion for summary decision is made and supported as provided in this rule, a party opposing the motion may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his or her pleading; the response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If no such response is filed, summary decision, if appropriate, shall be rendered.

(4) Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that it cannot, for reasons stated, present by affidavit facts essential to justify its opposition, the Commission may deny the motion for summary decision or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or make such other order as is appropriate and a determination to that effect shall be made a matter of record.

(5) If on motion under this rule a summary decision is not rendered upon the whole case or for all the relief asked and a trial is necessary, the Commission shall issue an order specifying the facts that appear without substantial controversy and directing further proceedings in the action. The facts so specified shall be deemed established.

(b) Affidavits filed in bad faith. (1) Should it appear to the satisfaction of the Commission at any time that any of the affidavits presented pursuant to this rule are presented in bad faith, or solely for the purpose of delay, or are patently frivolous, the Commission shall enter a determination to that effect upon the record.

(2) If upon consideration of all relevant facts attending the submission of any affidavit covered by paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the Commission concludes that action to suspend or remove an attorney from the case is warranted, it shall take action as specified in § 3.42(d).

[74 FR 1822, Jan. 13, 2009, as amended at 88 FR 42875, July 5, 2023]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case: Fanning v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 821 F.3d 164 (1st Cir. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fanning v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 821 F.3d 164 (1st Cir. 2016). “Liability The FTC Rules of Practice and Procedure allow the Commission to grant “summary decision,” which is reviewed under the same standard as summary judgment -before a district court.”

Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 849 F.2d 1354 (11th Cir. 1988). “24 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings, 16 C.F.R. § 3.24 (a) (“Commission Rule 3.”

Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 35 F.3d 600 (1st Cir. 1994). “Taking these factors into account, it is unsurprising that most major agencies in the federal system have opted to make available procedures for the summary disposition of adjudicatory matters.”

Trans Union Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 81 F.3d 228 (D.C. Cir. 1996). “The Commission’s finding to the contrary is especially vulnerable, in its view, because the Commission reached its decision under “summary decision” procedures, 16 CFR § 3.24 (1993) (modeled on judicial interpretations of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see…”

Am. Gen. Ins. Co. & Fid. & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 496 F.2d 197 (5th Cir. 1974). “24 of the Commission’s rules, 16 C.F. R. § 3.24. On March 7, 1972, an administrative law judge ruled that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to issue the complaint because the “States of Maryland and Texas, and many of the other states, have laws, capable of being enforced,…”

Surprise Brassiere Co., Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 406 F.2d 711 (5th Cir. 1969). “24(a), 16 C.F.R. § 3.24 (a) (1966), which provided: “Upon appeal from or review of an initial decision, the Commission will consider such parts of the record as are cited or as may be necessary to resolve the issues presented; and in addition will, to the extent necessary or…”

Y & Y Popcorn Supply Co. v. ABC VENDING Corp., 263 F. Supp. 709 (E.D. Pa. 1967). “FTC Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 3.24 . 10 . FTC Rules of Practice, 16 C.”

Traffic Jam Events v. FTC (5th Cir. 2025). “Similarly, although Traffic Jam used the words “due process” in its answer and defense filing during the administrative proceeding, it provided virtually no detail as to _____________________ 2 16 C.F.R. § 3.24 (a)(2). 3 See Impax Lab’ys, Inc.”

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.