From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. A.B.C. Roofing Siding, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. California, Central Division
Apr 14, 1961
193 F. Supp. 465 (S.D. Cal. 1961)

Opinion

No. 583-60.

April 14, 1961.

John W. Bunnett, South Gate, Cal., for plaintiff.

Maurice H. Wallbert, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants United Pac. Ins. Co. and American Re-Insurance Co.


The complaint in this action was filed on May 20, 1960. Jurisdiction is conferred under §§ 270a and 270b of Title 40 U.S.C.A. (The Miller Act).

Section 270b(b) provides in part as follows:

"* * *, but no such suit shall be commenced after the expiration of one year after the date of final settlement of such contract. * *"

In the case at bar final settlement was made on May 20, 1959.

The question before the Court is whether the complaint was filed after expiration of one year from the date of final settlement.

In 1943 a Judge of this Court, Honorable J.F.T. O'Connor, in United States for Use of Strona v. Bussey, 51 F. Supp. 996, 998 (an action "on all fours" with the case at bar), interpreted the term "after the expiration of one year" to mean a calendar year and held that where final settlement was on July 9, 1942 a complaint filed on July 9, 1943 was filed too late.

However, Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., is as follows:

"(a) Computation. In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these rules, by order of court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the act, event, or default after which the designated period of time begins to run is not to be included. * * *"

The Miller Act is an "applicable statute" within contemplation of Rule 6. The two most recent cases construing application of the rule seem to be United States to Use of Engineering and Equipment Company v. Wyatt, D.C., 174 F. Supp. 260 and Prince v. United States, D.C., 185 F. Supp. 269.

In the case at bar the complaint was filed timely, if the first day of the year involved is excluded in accordance with Rule 6. Consequently, it is the finding of the Court that the within action was commenced within one year after the date of final settlement.


Summaries of

United States v. A.B.C. Roofing Siding, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. California, Central Division
Apr 14, 1961
193 F. Supp. 465 (S.D. Cal. 1961)
Case details for

United States v. A.B.C. Roofing Siding, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America for the Use and Benefit of PRE-FAB ERECTORS…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. California, Central Division

Date published: Apr 14, 1961

Citations

193 F. Supp. 465 (S.D. Cal. 1961)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Biogenesis Pacific, Inc.

Instead, Miller Act cases hold that the limitations period under the Act is calculated pursuant to Federal…

United States ex rel. N.E.W. Interstate Concrete, Inc. v. EUI Corp.

; United States For Use of Greenwald-Supon, Inc. v. Gramercy Contractors, Inc., 433 F.Supp. 156, 163 n. 1…