Rodriguez v. United States, Civ. No. 588-73.
| Decision Date | 09 August 1974 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 588-73. |
| Parties | Angelita Torres RODRIGUEZ, pro se and representing her minor daughter, Mayra Luz Santiago Torres, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America and United States Postal Service, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Rafael E. Castro Pérez, Santurce, P. R., for plaintiffs.
Asst. U. S. Atty., Ignacio Rivera Cordero, San Juan, P. R., for defendants.
Upon rejectment on December 29, 1972 of their administrative claim, plaintiffs filed the instant case on July 2, 1973 under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1346 and § 2671 et seq., known as the Federal Tort Claims Act. Defendant has moved to dismiss on the ground that the action is barred by the six-month statutory period of limitations established in 28 U.S.C.A. § 2401 (b). After hearing the parties and studying their supplemental memoranda, the Court is of the opinion that the action was timely filed.
The statutory period of time involved in this case is that of "six months". It has been uniformly held that the word "month" signifies a calendar month, regardless of the number of days it contains (see 86 C.J.S. Time § 10, p. 837 and cases cited therein). Therefore, the time to file the complaint would expire on June 29, 1972 and the action would be barred unless the provisions of Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are found to be applicable. Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that in computing any period of time prescribed by any applicable statute, the day from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included and that the last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday or a legal holiday, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is not a Saturday, a Sunday or a legal holiday. Therefore, if applicable to this action the day from which the period of limitations would begin to run, would not be the 29th but rather the 30th of December, 1972, and the statutory period of limitations would run until June 30, 1973, that is, six months from the day in which plaintiffs' claim was rejected unless, as provided in said Rule 6(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, such day falls on a Saturday, a Sunday or a legal holiday, in which case the period runs until the end of the next day which is not one of those expressly mentioned days. The Court takes judicial notice that June 30, 1973...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frey v. Woodard
...minor child). 4 This result does not signal a retreat from or disagreement with United States v. Bledsoe, supra, or Rodriguez v. United States, 382 F.Supp. 1 (D.P.R.1974). If the two-year period had expired on a Thursday and plaintiffs had filed Friday, the claim would be dismissed as time-......
-
State for Benefit of Quinn v. Johnson, 69,469
...day after the action accrued, Bledsoe v. Department of Hous. & Urban Development, 398 F.Supp. 315 (E.D.Pa.1975), and Rodriguez v. United States, 382 F.Supp. 1 (D.P.R.1974), are unpersuasive. Both of these cases involve determining when the six-month limitations period runs for filing an act......
-
Sargent v. Pompeo
...6 in the manner Sargent suggests. See, e.g., Paynter v. Chesapeake and O. Ry., 60 F.R.D. 153, 157 (W.D. Va. 1973); Rodriguez v. United States, 382 F. Supp. 1, 2 (D.P.R. 1974). Most decisions, however, reject that method andaccord with SOC's argument. See, e.g., Merriweather v. City of Memph......
-
Day v. Morgenthau
...of the law, compare Bledsoe v. Department of Housing and Urban Dev., 398 F.Supp. 315, 318-21 (E.D. Pa. 1975) and Rodriguez v. United States, 382 F.Supp. 1, 2 (D.P.R. 1974) with Morton v. City of Little Rock, 728 F.Supp. 543, 546 (E.D. Ark. 1989) and Murray v. United States Postal Serv., 569......