American Premier Underwriters, Inc. v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.
839 F.3d 458
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- APU (American Premier Underwriters) holds 5.2 million shares of Amtrak common stock; § 415(b) of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act (ARAA) required Amtrak to redeem that stock at fair market value by October 1, 2002.
- In 2000 Amtrak offered to redeem APU’s shares at $0.03 per share; APU rejected the offer and considered it de minimis.
- Amtrak did not redeem the shares by the October 1, 2002 deadline; APU and Amtrak continued negotiations through January 2008 without settlement.
- APU sued in May 2008 asserting seven claims; the district court dismissed all seven in 2011; the Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of six claims but remanded one procedural-due-process claim for statute-of-limitations analysis.
- On remand the district court dismissed the remaining procedural-due-process claim as time-barred; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding APU’s claim accrued by at least October 1, 2002.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did APU’s procedural-due-process claim accrue for statute-of-limitations purposes? | Accrual occurred in January 2008 when Amtrak terminated negotiations and gave "final notice" of denial. | Accrual occurred no later than October 1, 2002 (when the statutory redemption deadline passed); possibly in 2000 when the low offer was made. | The claim accrued by October 1, 2002 (or earlier). APU’s 2008 suit was time-barred under the three-year statute. |
| Whether a procedural-due-process claim requires a final agency decision or final notice before accrual | A plaintiff must receive final notice of denial of process before the limitations period begins. | Procedural-due-process injuries accrue when process is denied; a missed statutory deadline can constitute denial. | Final notice is not required; accrual occurs when process is denied — here by the statutory deadline. |
| Whether the statutory deadline in § 415(b) is relevant to accrual of a constitutional claim | The statutory deadline does not set accrual for APU’s constitutional claim. | The statutory deadline defines the property right and thus the point at which denial of process occurred. | The statutory deadline is central because § 415(b) creates the property interest; missing the deadline put APU on notice. |
| Whether dismissal on statute-of-limitations grounds was improper without discovery | Discovery might show factual disputes about accrual (APU claims). | Accrual date is a legal question here; dates are undisputed and the complaint shows the claim is untimely. | Dismissal was appropriate because the material dates are undisputed and the limitations bar is clear from the complaint. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nasierowski Bros. Inv. Co. v. City of Sterling Heights, 949 F.2d 890 (6th Cir. 1991) (procedural-due-process claim accrues when process is denied)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (accrual and ripeness coincide; a claim accrues when plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. Hamilton, 453 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2006) (statute-of-limitations begins the day after a statutory deadline passes where a reasonably prudent plaintiff would know defendant failed to act)
- Braun v. Ann Arbor Charter Twp., 519 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2008) (discussing limits of Nasierowski to procedural claims)
- Brock v. McWherter, 94 F.3d 242 (6th Cir. 1996) (property interests for due process are created by independent sources, e.g., statutes)
- Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (property interests are defined by existing rules or understandings)