Sonicraft, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
| Citation | 814 F.2d 385 |
| Decision Date | 03 March 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-2786,86-2786 |
| Parties | 125 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2679, 106 Lab.Cas. P 12,281 SONICRAFT, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
Gerald Smetana, Ruberry, Fhares, Abramson & Fox, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
Margery S. Lieber, N.L.R.B., Corinna Metcalf, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Before WOOD, POSNER, and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges.
On September 26, 1986, the National Labor Relations Board denied Sonicraft's request for an award of attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 504. On October 30 the clerk of this court received by mail Sonicraft's petition to review the Board's denial; the letter containing the petition was postmarked October 27. The Act provides that a party who is dissatisfied with an agency's ruling on a request for fees under the Act "may, within 30 days after the determination is made, appeal the determination to the court of the United States having jurisdiction to review the merits of the underlying decision." 5 U.S.C. Sec. 504(c)(2). Citing this provision, the Board has moved to dismiss Sonicraft's petition as untimely. Sonicraft replies that the date of mailing is the date of appeal, and that it relied on advice received from a staff attorney at this court, who told its counsel that a petition mailed within 30 days would be timely.
A notice of appeal or petition for review is filed when received, not when sent. City of Chicago v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 737 F.2d 1466, 1471 (7th Cir.1984). So Sonicraft's petition was untimely. Moreover, the deadline for filing is jurisdictional, meaning we have no power to waive it. This conclusion was reached with regard to the 30-day deadline in the Act for submitting an application for fees to the agency, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 504(a)(2), in Action on Smoking & Health v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 724 F.2d 211, 225 (D.C.Cir.1984), and cases cited there. Admittedly that subsection, (a)(2), uses "shall" rather than "may," but this can make no difference. (a)(2) assumes that a party wants fees, and provides therefore that he "shall, within 30 days," submit his application; (c)(2), the subsection involved in this case, gives the disappointed party 30 days to appeal--but that is the outer limit. It would be absurd to read the statute to mean, you may file your petition for review within 30 days, or for that matter within any period that you like, provided we don't think it's too long.
The Board's rule adding three days to the deadline for filings that are mailed, 29 C.F.R. Sec. 102.114, can't help Sonicraft, and not only because an agency cannot enlarge our jurisdiction to review its orders (nor, for that matter, can we). The rule by its terms applies only if the deadline runs from the receipt by the party of the decision that he wants to challenge here the deadline runs from "the determination" itself. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 504(c)(2).
As for the misleading advice that Sonicraft allegedly received from a staff attorney of this court: We have not tried to determine the truth of the allegation, because it is irrelevant as we are about to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. v. USEPA, 88 C 2797.
...to give the settlement agreement. On the one hand, an administrative agency cannot enlarge our jurisdiction, see Sonicraft v. NLRB, 814 F.2d 385, 386 (7th Cir.1987), nor can jurisdiction be created by consent of the parties, see Plaquemines Port, Harbor & Terminal District v. Federal Mariti......
-
Varhol v. National R.R. Passenger Corp.
...560-61, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978); Parke-Chapley Constr. Co. v. Cherrington, 865 F.2d 907, 908-09 (7th Cir.1989); cf., Sonicraft, Inc. v. NLRB, 814 F.2d 385 (7th Cir.1987). This means what it says: if an appellant does not file his notice of appeal on time, we cannot hear his If a party files a......
-
Sheely v. Wisconsin Dept. of Health & Social Services
...N.L.R.B., 856 F.2d 1423, 1424 (9th Cir.1988). See also J-I-J Const. Co. v. U.S., 829 F.2d 26, 29 (Fed.Cir.1987); Sonicraft, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 814 F.2d 385, 386 (7th Cir.1987); Clifton v. Heckler, 755 F.2d 1138, 1144 (5th Cir.1985). This jurisdictional question cannot be waived and may be fi......
-
Long Island Radio Co. v. N.L.R.B.
...that the Act restricted the jurisdiction of the court or the agency to entertain the application. See, e.g., Sonicraft, Inc. v. NLRB, 814 F.2d 385, 386 (7th Cir.1987) (Board lacked power under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 504(a)(2) to add three days to 30-day period to allow for mailing); Clifton v. Heckl......