FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FIGGIE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant-Appellant

Good Law
93 Daily Journal DAR 5799·994 F.2d 595·38 Fed. R. Serv. 1180·1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 10414·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3339
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 7, 199391-55367California6,587 words

Opinion

Opinion

Pursuant to Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45 , Figgie International, Inc. (“Figgie”) was ordered to cease and desist from the “unfair or deceptive” practices it used to market its Vanguard heat detectors. After the order became final, FTC sought consumer redress under section 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57b. The district court granted FTC’s motions for summary judgment, finding Fig-gie liable for “dishonest or fraudulent” practices in its first judgment and setting the amount of liability at a minimum of $7.59 million and a maximum of $49.95 million (i.e. a range between the amount of Figgie’s profits and the full amount spent by consumers) in the second. Figgie appeals both. We affirm as modified.

FACTS

In a Section 19 proceeding, the Commission’s findings of material fact in support of its cease and desist order “shall be conclusive.” Section 19(c)(1), 15 U.S.C. § 57b(c)(l). Administrative Law Judge Montgomery K. Hyun issued extensive findings on October 23, 1984 (“ALJ”) which were adopted in the Commission’s final order on April 11, 1986 (“Comm’n”). Figgie International, Inc., 107 FTC 313 (1986), aff'd, 817 F.2d 102 (4th Cir.1987) (text…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.