In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 WEIGHT-LOSS PRODUCTS and WEIGHT-LOSS PRODUCTS, INC.
 39 Orchard Street at
 Manhasset, NY 11030

 P.S. Docket No. 9/42;
 
 05/21/81
 
 Cohen, James A.

 APPEARANCE FOR COMPLAINANT:
 Daniel E. Lewis, Esq.
 Consumer Protection Division
 Law Department
 United States Postal Service
 Washington, DC 20260

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 Fred Schwartz, Esq.
 420 Jericho Turnpike
 Jericho, NY 11753

On January 27, 1981, Complainant filed a "Petition for Mail Stop Order Based Upon Breach of Consent Agreement" alleging that Respondent, under the name Diet Products, Inc., 1 West Main Street, Smithtown, NY 11787, has breached the terms of the Consent Agreement executed on its behalf by Michael H. Faigelman on October 9, 1980. Respondent filed an Answer to the Motion denying each and every allegation set forth in the Petition.

In its Petition, Complainant sought the issuance of a Temporary Detention Order which was issued on January 28, 1981. Respondent initiated suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District Court of New York, seeking to have the Temporary Detention Order vacated. The proceeding before the Court and the Petition before this Office were concurrently pending as of early April 1981.

In telephone conferences with counsel for the parties and the Judicial Officer on April 1 and 3, 1981, two issues were identified which it was agreed were dispositive of both pending proceedings. These issues were (1) whether Diet Products was the same party who agreed to be bound by the terms of the Consent Agreement and (2) whether a July 1980, mailing, or subsequent similar mailings, could constitute a breach of the Consent Agreement. The former issue was decided adversely to Respondent in an Order of the Court dated April 27, 1981, confirming findings of fact issued by a Magistrate of the Court. Following a hearing before the Judicial Officer the latter issue was decided adversely to Respondent in a Postal Service Decision dated May 4, 1981.

A copy of the Findings of the Magistrate and the confirming Order of the Court were made a part of the record in this case on May 6 and 12, 1981, and Counsel for the parties were so advised. Counsel were also advised that in the absence of any request for further processing the proceeding would be considered ready for final decision on the record as it then stood. Neither party requested further action prior to the issuance of a decision on Complainant's Petition.

Based on the findings of the Magistrate confirmed by Order of the United States District Court and the Postal Service Decision of May 4, 1981, it is concluded that Respondent has breached the terms of its Consent Agreement and that the Mail Stop Order sought by Complainant should issue. Accordingly, a Mail Stop Order is being issued contemporaneously with this Order.