Rust v. Quality Car Corral, Inc., No. 77-3528
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before CELEBREZZE, MERRITT and MARTIN; BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr. |
| Citation | 614 F.2d 1118 |
| Parties | Robert L. RUST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. QUALITY CAR CORRAL, INC.; and the Provident Bank, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Docket Number | No. 77-3528 |
| Decision Date | 20 February 1980 |
Page 1118
v.
QUALITY CAR CORRAL, INC.; and the Provident Bank,
Defendants-Appellees.
Sixth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 20, 1980.
Drake W. Ebner, Swain & Hardin, Cincinnati, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellant.
Page 1119
W. Kenneth Zuk, Zuk & Schaeffer, James R. Whitaker, Keating, Muething & Klekamp, Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendants-appellees.
Before CELEBREZZE, MERRITT and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., Circuit Judge.
This case requires us to construe 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e), the statute of limitations applicable to the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. Plaintiff Rust appeals the district court's dismissal of the action based upon the one-year statute of limitations contained in § 1640(e). We affirm.
On July 1, 1976, plaintiff entered into an installment sale agreement with defendant Quality Car Corral, Inc. Quality Car subsequently assigned its interest in the contract to defendant Provident Bank. On July 1, 1977, Rust filed a complaint in district court. He alleged that defendants' extension of credit to finance the transaction had violated various provisions of the Truth in Lending Act. Defendants moved to dismiss, contending that Rust was barred from suit for failure to bring his claim within the one-year statute of limitations.
The issue here is whether the statutory limitations period had expired when Rust filed his claim on July 1, 1977. The governing statute provides: "Any action under this section may be brought in any United States district court, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, within one year from the date of occurrence of the violation." 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) (emphasis added).
Appellant argues that "one year" should be computed by applying Rule 6(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 6(a) states:
In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these rules, by the local rules of any district court, by order of court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the act, event, or default from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included. . . .
Thus, according to plaintiff's interpretation, the July 1, 1977 filing was timely because the statute of limitations did not begin to run until July 2, 1976.
In support of his position, plaintiff cites Gammons v. Domestic Loans of Winston-Salem, Inc., 423 F.Supp. 819 (M.D.N.C.1976), and Souife v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mullinax v. Radian Guar. Inc., No. 1:00CV01247.
...Furthermore, the D.C. Circuit also supported its decision by relying upon the Sixth Circuit case of Rust v. Quality Car Corral, Inc., 614 F.2d 1118, 1119 (6th Cir.1980), which held that the statute of limitations in TILA served as a jurisdictional bar. The decision in Rust was limited, howe......
-
Johnson v. Riddle, No. 01-4028.
...conclusion that claims must be filed before the anniversary on a single case. Id. at 262. That case, Rust v. Quality Car Corral, Inc., 614 F.2d 1118 (6th Cir.1980) has since been overruled—on precisely the point relied upon by Mattson — by the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc. Bartlik v. Unite......
-
Pugh, In re, No. 96-3790
...(citing Martin v. First Nat'l Bank of Louisville (In re Butcher ), 829 F.2d 596, 600 (6th Cir.1987); Rust v. Quality Car Corral, Inc., 614 F.2d 1118, 1119 (6th Cir.1980)); cf. Burnett v. New York Cent. R.R. Co., 380 U.S. 424, 425-27 & n. 2, 85 S.Ct. 1050, 1053-54 & n. 2, 13 L.Ed.2d 941 (196......
-
Pers. Representative Of The Estate Of Robert Mader v. USA, No. 09-1025.
...Cir.1984). In addition, we also note that the single case Mattson relied on to support its position, Rust v. Quality Car Corral, Inc., 614 F.2d 1118 (6th Cir.1980), has subsequently been unanimously overruled by the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc. See Bartlik v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 62 F.3d ......
-
Mullinax v. Radian Guar. Inc., No. 1:00CV01247.
...Furthermore, the D.C. Circuit also supported its decision by relying upon the Sixth Circuit case of Rust v. Quality Car Corral, Inc., 614 F.2d 1118, 1119 (6th Cir.1980), which held that the statute of limitations in TILA served as a jurisdictional bar. The decision in Rust was limited, howe......
-
Johnson v. Riddle, No. 01-4028.
...conclusion that claims must be filed before the anniversary on a single case. Id. at 262. That case, Rust v. Quality Car Corral, Inc., 614 F.2d 1118 (6th Cir.1980) has since been overruled—on precisely the point relied upon by Mattson — by the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc. Bartlik v. Unite......
-
Pugh, In re, No. 96-3790
...(citing Martin v. First Nat'l Bank of Louisville (In re Butcher ), 829 F.2d 596, 600 (6th Cir.1987); Rust v. Quality Car Corral, Inc., 614 F.2d 1118, 1119 (6th Cir.1980)); cf. Burnett v. New York Cent. R.R. Co., 380 U.S. 424, 425-27 & n. 2, 85 S.Ct. 1050, 1053-54 & n. 2, 13 L.Ed.2d 941 (196......
-
Pers. Representative Of The Estate Of Robert Mader v. USA, No. 09-1025.
...Cir.1984). In addition, we also note that the single case Mattson relied on to support its position, Rust v. Quality Car Corral, Inc., 614 F.2d 1118 (6th Cir.1980), has subsequently been unanimously overruled by the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc. See Bartlik v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 62 F.3d ......