From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sanders v. Department of Army

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Dec 22, 1992
981 F.2d 990 (8th Cir. 1992)

Summary

holding defendant could raise statute of limitations defense for the first time in a motion to dismiss because it would have been a meaningless formality for the court to require an amended answer to assert such a claim

Summary of this case from Peterson Electric v. Beach Mountain Builders

Opinion

No. 92-1014.

Submitted November 10, 1992.

Decided December 22, 1992.

Richard J. Pautler and Lisa A. Ottolini, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

Joseph B. Moore, Asst. U.S. Atty., St. Louis, MO, and Captain Michael J. Davidson, Dept. of the Army, Arlington, VA, for appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and LOKEN, Circuit Judge.


In February 1988 Patricia Ann Sanders was discharged from her position as a clerk/typist for the Army Aviation Systems Command. She appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board, alleging that she was discharged because of her race and sex. The Board's adverse decision became final in August 1988. Sanders filed this petition for review in January 1991. Such a petition "must be filed within 30 days after the date the individual filing the case received notice of the judicially reviewable action." 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2).

In the district court, the government filed its answer alleging the affirmative defenses of failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction. Two months later, the government moved to dismiss Sanders's petition as time-barred. Sanders opposed the motion, arguing to the district court, as she does on appeal, that § 7703(b)(2) provides an affirmative statute of limitations defense that the government waived by failing to plead it in the answer. The government responded that compliance with the statute's time limitation is a jurisdictional prerequisite, and that such a defect cannot be waived.

The HONORABLE GEORGE F. GUNN, JR., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Like the district court, we find it unnecessary to decide whether § 7703(b)(2) is a statute of limitations or a non-waivable jurisdictional limitation. Even if § 7703(b)(2) is a statute of limitations, it is arguable that the failure to state a claim defense in the government's answer preserved the limitations defense. Although statutes of limitations provide an affirmative defense that ordinarily must be specifically pleaded, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c), a complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim "when the affirmative [limitations] defense clearly appears on the face of the complaint." White v. Padgett, 475 F.2d 79, 82 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 861, 94 S.Ct. 78, 38 L.Ed.2d 112 (1973).

Moreover, even if the government's answer did not properly preserve the limitations defense, the district court had the discretion, which it expressly exercised, to grant the government leave to amend its answer to include this omitted Rule 8(c) defense. See Groninger v. Davison, 364 F.2d 638, 640 (8th Cir. 1966). It was not necessary for the district court to require the meaningless formality of an amended answer because the government's motion to dismiss, which expressly raised the limitations issue, provided Sanders with sufficient notice. See Grant v. Preferred Research, Inc., 885 F.2d 795, 797-98 (11th Cir. 1989).

We conclude that Sanders's petition for review was clearly time-barred under § 7703(b)(2), and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the government to raise this defense in its motion to dismiss filed two months after its answer. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.


Summaries of

Sanders v. Department of Army

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Dec 22, 1992
981 F.2d 990 (8th Cir. 1992)

holding defendant could raise statute of limitations defense for the first time in a motion to dismiss because it would have been a meaningless formality for the court to require an amended answer to assert such a claim

Summary of this case from Peterson Electric v. Beach Mountain Builders

finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing an affirmative defense to be raised for the first time in a motion to dismiss

Summary of this case from First Union Nat. Bank v. Pictet Trust

finding no abuse of discretion when the district court allowed an affirmative defense to be raised for the first time in a motion to dismiss

Summary of this case from Pesce v. City of Des Moines

finding no abuse of discretion in trial court's decision to permit affirmative defense raised for first time in a motion to dismiss

Summary of this case from City of Minneapolis v. Redflex Traffic Sys., Inc.

concluding that a district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing an affirmative defense to be raised for the first time on a motion to dismiss

Summary of this case from Am. Traffic Solutions, Inc. v. B&W Sensors, LLC

stating "[i]t was not necessary for the district court to require the meaningless formality of an amended answer because the [defendant]'s motion to dismiss, which expressly raised the limitations issue, provided [the plaintiff] with sufficient notice."

Summary of this case from Yeargans v. City of Kansas City

reasoning that a Rule 12(b) dismissal on the statute of limitations defense is appropriate "'when the . . . defense clearly appears on the face of the complaint.'" (quoting White v. Padgett, 475 F.2d 79, 82 (5th Cir. 1973))

Summary of this case from Waldner v. North American Truck Trailer, Inc.

In Sanders v. Department of the Army, 981 F.2d 990 (8th Cir. 1992), the Eighth Circuit found that it was "arguable that the failure to state a claim defense in the government's answer preserved the [statute of] limitations defense." Id. at 991.

Summary of this case from McCaskill v. First Franklin Financial Corp.

In Sanders v. Department of the Army, 981 F.2d 990 (8th Cir. 1992), the Eighth Circuit faced a similar situation of an omitted Rule 8(c) defense.

Summary of this case from Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Lott
Case details for

Sanders v. Department of Army

Case Details

Full title:PATRICIA ANN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Date published: Dec 22, 1992

Citations

981 F.2d 990 (8th Cir. 1992)

Citing Cases

Waldner v. North American Truck & Trailer, Inc.

Illig, 652 F.3d at 976-77; see alsoSanders v. Dep't of Army, 981 F.2d 990, 991 (8th Cir.1992)…

Waldner v. North American Truck Trailer, Inc.

A court may dismiss a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) as barred by the statute of limitations if the complaint…