United States Ninth Circuit

Denial of defendant's motion for return of property pursuant to Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, filed at a time when no criminal charges were pending, is reversed and remanded where: 1) the district court improperly converted the motion for return of property into a motion for summary judgment, and then decided the issue in an ad hoc proceeding, under a preponderance of the evidence standard; 2) applying the appropriate standard, a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether defendant received actual notice of the forfeiture.

Appellate Information

• Argued 03/03/2008
• Decided 04/14/2008
• Published 04/14/2008

Judges

• WALLACE, Circuit Judge:, Before:  J. CLIFFORD WALLACE, RONALD M. GOULD, and SANDRA S. IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• James W. Spertus, Los Angeles, CA, and Ronald Richards, Beverly Hills, CA, for the defendant-appellant., Thomas P. O'Brien, United States Attorney, Christine C. Ewell, Assistant United States Attorney, and Steven R. Welk, Assistant United States Attorney, for the plaintiff-appellee.