Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

INDEX DIGEST
respondent to state whether it consented to the shortened procedure and to answer the
complaint The granting of such an extension was authorized by Rule lO g of the
Commission s Rules E S B Inc v Moore McCormack Lines Inc 480 481
Where the presiding officer in a proceeding for reparation granted pursuant to Rule
100g of the Commission s Rules of Practice and Procedure an extension of time for
respondent to state whether it consented to the use of the shortened procedure and did
file an answer permission from the Commission or the Chief Administrative Law Judge
to grant the extension pursuant to Rule 5 d was unnecessary Rule ll i provides that
Subpart E Rule 5 applies only where the respondent does not consent to conducting
the proceeding under the shortened procedure Rule 5 was inapplicable Id 481
835
The presiding officer in a proceeding for reparation properly denied complainant s
motion for judgment on the pleadings which was based on the respondent s failure to
answer the complaint within the twenty day period provided by Rule 5 d of the
Commission s Rules of Practice and Procedure Even where agencies act in a quasi
judicial capacity the strict rules which prevail in suits between private parties and the
hard and fast rules as to pleadings which govern courts of law do not apply to
administrative proceedings where inquiries should not be too narrowly constrained by
technicalities Respondent was unaware of the Commission s procedural requirements
but when instructed how to proceed made what appeared to be a good faith effort to
comply with the Commission s Rules Moreover the complaint alleging a violation by
the respondent of section 18b 3 of the Shipping Act 1916 raised issues of fact which
could not be resolved by default but were required to be properly established on the
basis of all the available evidence Under the circumstances the presiding officer had
the authority to grant respondent an extension of time in which to answer and did not
act arbitrarily in acceptingthe filing ofrespondent s answer Id 481
The Commission amends its Rules of Practice and Procedure to authorize presiding
officers to enter such order or rule as they deem proper when no answer to a complaint
is timely filed and to extend the time for filing answers to permit the filing on the
following business day when the two year statutory limit for filing complaints seeking
reparation expires on a Saturday Sunday or legal holiday and to authorize presiding
officers to order a hearing as wen as the submission of additional evidence in
proceedings conducted under the shortened procedure Rules of Practice and Procedure
656
Where an administrative law judge dismissed the proceeding observing that complain
ant had flied no replies to respondents motions to dismiss and upon being informed by
complainant that he had not received copies of the reply due to clericalerror entered an
Order upon Sua Sponte Reconsideration wherein he took account of complainant s
replies and again dismissed the proceeding the sua sponte reconsideration order
constituted an adequate response to complainant s subsequently filed motion for
reconsideration in which complainant raised the same arguments The administrative
law judge was accordingly not required to address the latter motion separately
Interconex Inc v Sea Land Service Inc American Export Lines Inc and U S
Lines Inc 714 715
Complainant in docket proceeding is dismissed without prejudice The case was
almost four years old and there were no signs whatsoever that complainant would
proceed to hearing The practices complained of had long since been terminated and
whatever issues which have remained were removed by complainant when it amended
the complaint to delete its claim for reparation The case was therefore essentially
academic and at best would lead to a declaratory order type decision establishing the
rights of the parties However the dismissal would not be with prejudice and the AU
19 FM C