United States v. ABC Roofing & Siding, Inc.
Decision Date | 14 April 1961 |
Docket Number | No. 583-60.,583-60. |
Citation | 193 F. Supp. 465 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America for the Use and Benefit of PRE-FAB ERECTORS, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. A. B. C. ROOFING & SIDING, INC., a Washington corporation, United Pacific Insurance Company, a Washington corporation, and American Re-Insurance Company, a New York Corporation, Defendants. |
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 ( ), 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:
* * *"
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.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. ex rel. N.E.W. Interstate Concrete v. Eui, TH 98-104-C-T/H.
...Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ...."), aff'd, 379 F.2d 207 (2nd Cir.1967); United States for Use and Benefit of Pre-Fab Erectors, Inc. v. A.B.C. Roofing & Siding, Inc., 193 F.Supp. 465, 465 (S.D.Cal.1961) (same). But see United States for the use of Magna Masonry, Inc. v. R.T. Woodfield, ......
-
Keilman v. Dar Tile Co.
...which provide a right and a remedy and the limitation thereon. United States for Use and Benefit of Pre-Fab Erectors, Inc. v. A. B. C. Roofing & Siding, Inc., 193 F.Supp. 465 (S.D.Cal.1961) is a case brought under the Miller Act which provided that no suit could be commenced after the expir......
-
Bailey v. Faux
...of limitation question. 3United States ex rel. Altman v. Young Lumber Co., 376 F.Supp. 1290 (D.S.C.1974); United States v. A.B.C. Roofing & Siding, Inc., 193 F.Supp. 465 (S.D.Cal.1961). In Young Lumber, the last labor was supplied on August 30, 1972. The court applied Rule 6(a) and began th......
-
Smith v. Kenny
...Disclosure Act); Johnson v. Flemming, 264 F.2d 322 (10th Cir. 1959) (Social Security Review); United States v.A.B.C. Roofing and Siding, Inc., 193 F.Supp. 465 (D. Cal. 1961) (Miller Act); Prince v. United States, 185 F.Supp. 269 (D. Wis. 1960) (Federal Torts Claim Act). The conclusion here ......