Criminal Defendant's Restitution Motion for His Property, Plus Labor Matter

Sheehy Enter., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., No.09-1383, concerned a petition for review of the National Labor Relations Board's order affirming ALJ's holding that the company committed an unfair labor practice by repudiating the collective bargaining agreement (CBA).  In denying the petition, the court held that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's conclusion that the company committed an unfair labor practice by repudiating the 2004 CBA.  Furthermore, the company waived its affirmative defense that the section 10(b) statute of limitations bars the Board's complaint and the argument that the Board should have deferred from hearing the matter in favor of arbitration cannot be considered as it failed to present it to the Board. 

In US v. Norwood, No. 09-2507, the Seventh Circuit faced a challenge to district court's denial of defendant's motion seeking restitution from the government of the value of the missing property taken after his arrest, on the ground that Rule 41(g) does not authorize monetary relief in criminal cases.  In vacating the denial, the court held that the defendant is entitled to amend his complaint to add Bivens and section 1983 claims, as when a district court conducting a Rule 41(g) proceeding learns that the government no longer has property that is the subject of the motion to return, the court should grant the movant (particularly a pro se movant) an opportunity to assert an alternative claim for money damages by converting a motion for civil relief in a criminal case into a civil complaint, and the amendment relates back to the date of the filing of the original complaint.

Related Resources:

• Full text of Sheehy Enter., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd
• Full text of US v. Norwood,