United States v. Cave Construction, Inc.
Decision Date | 09 March 1966 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 2533. |
Citation | 250 F. Supp. 873 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, suing herein for the Use and Benefit of ANGELL BROS., INC., a Corporation, Plaintiff, v. CAVE CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Corporation, and American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, a corporation, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Montana |
R. F. Clary, Jr., Great Falls, Mont., for plaintiff.
Graybill & Graybill, Great Falls, Mont., for defendants.
This Miller Act case was commenced on January 13, 1965. The defendants were served with process on January 15, 1965.
No appearance was made until February 23, 1966, when the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds (1) that the complaint fails to state a claim, and (2) that the complaint shows on its face that the contract was to be performed in the State of Wyoming and should have been brought in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming. No brief was filed in support of the first ground, and it is without merit. Memoranda on the second ground have been filed by both parties.
Counsel for the respective parties apparently agreed informally shortly after the action was commenced that it would not be necessary for the defendants to file an appearance pending settlement negotiations. This is a practice which unfortunately is used all too frequently in this court. At the outset it should be made clear that the practice is not approved by the court and is always a potential source of misunderstanding, as well as annoyance to the court.
Section 270b(b) of Title 40, United States Code, provides in pertinent part:
"Every suit instituted under this section shall be brought * * * in the United States District Court for any district in which the contract was to be performed and executed and not elsewhere, * * * but no such suit shall be commenced after the expiration of one year after the day on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied by him."
The parties agree that this provision relates to venue and not to jurisdiction. Such a venue provision confers a personal privilege on a defendant which may be asserted or waived, and is waived where a defendant enters an appearance without claiming the privilege. Lee v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry., 1923, 260 U.S. 653, 43 S.Ct. 230, 67 L.Ed. 443; United States to Use and Benefit of Bailey-Lewis-Williams of Fla., Inc. v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co. of Canada, Ltd., D.D.C., 1961, 195 F.Supp. 752, affirmed 112 U.S. App.D.C. 99, 299 F.2d 930.
Moreover, 28 U.S.C. 1406(b) provides that, "Nothing in this chapter shall impair the jurisdiction of a district court of any matter involving a party who does not interpose timely and sufficient objection to the venue." In construing this section in Fallbrook Public Util. Dist. v. United States Dist. Court, 9 Cir., 1953, 202 F.2d 942, 944, the court said:
In Farmers Elevator Mut. Ins. Co. v. Carl J. Austad & Sons, Inc., 8 Cir. 1965, 343 F.2d 7, 12, the court suggested "by way of caveat that under Rule 12(b) Fed. R.Civ.P. 28 U.S.C.A., a motion raising objections to venue must be filed within twenty days after service of the summons and complaint".
To the same effect is Nelson v. Victory Elec. Works, Inc., D.Md., 1962, 210 F. Supp. 954, 957, where service was completed on April 4, 1962, and a motion was filed on May 1, 1962. The court said in part: "This belated filing of the motion, unexcused by a stipulation between the parties extending the defendant's time, is fatal, and the defendant must be deemed to have waived his venue privileges."
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Athletes Foot of Delaware v. Ralph Libonati Co.
...statute of limitations has, or is about to, run on the underlying claim. United States for Use and Benefit of Angell Bros., Inc. v. Cave Construction, Inc., 250 F.Supp. 873 (D.Mont.1966); Dennis v. Galvanek, 171 F.Supp. 115 (M.D.Pa.1959); Schultz v. McAfee, 160 F.Supp. 210 (D.Me.1958). Thus......
-
Lamont v. Haig
...569 F.2d 1, 3 n. 15 (1977), Petition for cert. filed, 46 U.S.L.W. 3694 (U.S. May 28, 1978); Cf. United States ex rel. Angell Bros., Inc. v. Cave Constr. Co., 250 F.Supp. 873, 874 (D.Mont.1966), our disposition of this appeal eliminates any present need to consider that issue.6 Part I Infra.......
-
Allen v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
...had run. Burnett v. New York Cent. R.R., 380 U.S. 424, 430, 85 S.Ct. 1050, 1055, 13 L.Ed.2d 941 (1965); see United States v. Cave Constr., Inc., 250 F.Supp. 873, 874-75 (D.Mont.1966). Appellant should not be penalized for choosing a Utah state court, especially when she did so with the reas......
-
Parham v. Edwards
...1118 (6 Cir.); Kaiser v. Mayo Clinic, D.C., 260 F.Supp. 900, aff'd. 383 F.2d 653 (8 Cir.); United States for Use and Benefit of Angell Bros., Inc. v. Cave Construction, Inc., D.C., 250 F.Supp. 873; Ferguson v. Kwik-Chek, D.C., 308 F. Supp. 78; 1 Moore's Federal Practice § 0.145 4.-5; 7B § 1......
-
Extraordinary Collection Procedures Part Ii
...Bros. Truck Lines v. Jenmar Constr. Co., 223 F.Supp. 646 (Ore. 1963); United States use of Angell Bros., Inc. v. Cave Constr., Inc., 250 F.Supp. 873 (Mont 1966); Fireman's Fund Ins. v. Frank Briscoe Co., 462 F.Supp. 114 (La. 1978); Caswell Equip. Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 494 F.Supp. 3......