United States ex rel. Pre-Fab Erectors, Inc. v. A. B. C. Roofing & Siding, Inc.

193 F. Supp. 465, 4 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 67, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4047
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedApril 14, 1961
DocketNo. 583-60
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 193 F. Supp. 465 (United States ex rel. Pre-Fab Erectors, Inc. v. A. B. C. Roofing & Siding, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States ex rel. Pre-Fab Erectors, Inc. v. A. B. C. Roofing & Siding, Inc., 193 F. Supp. 465, 4 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 67, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4047 (S.D. Cal. 1961).

Opinion

WESTOVER, District Judge.

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 ease 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bailey v. Faux
704 F. Supp. 1051 (D. Utah, 1989)
Smith v. Kenny
16 V.I. 411 (Virgin Islands, 1979)
Keilman v. Dar Tile Company
393 P.2d 332 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
193 F. Supp. 465, 4 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 67, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-ex-rel-pre-fab-erectors-inc-v-a-b-c-roofing-siding-casd-1961.