Gordon v. PETE'S AUTO SERVICE OF DENBIGH, INC.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2816
4th Cir.2011Background
- Andre Gordon, a Navy servicemember, was deployed to Norfolk; his Jeep Grand Cherokee was left at an apartment complex parking lot.
- While deployed, Pete's Towing was notified and towed Gordon's Jeep, later retaining it for a month and selling it on June 22–25, 2007, without notifying Gordon or his wife.
- Gordon filed a federal complaint December 17, 2008, alleging conversion and a SCRA violation (50 U.S.C. app. § 537(a)(1)).
- The district court dismissed for lack of a private right of action under § 537; Congress amended the SCRA in 2010 to add a private damages action under § 802, creating the issue of retroactive application to this case.
- The Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that § 802(a) provides a private action and that the amendment is not retroactive as applied here; remand ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Express reach of §802(a) | Gordon argues §802(a) creates an express private right. | Pete's Towing contends §802(a) lacks explicit retroactive language. | No express retroactive command; statute silent on pre-enactment application. |
| Retroactive effect on pre-enactment conduct | Applying §802(a) would award damages for pre-enactment conduct. | No retroactive effect if it merely locates remedies in federal court. | Applying §802(a) has no impermissible retroactive effect in this context. |
| Effect on rights and liabilities (new liability vs. jurisdictional change) | §802(a) expands remedies for SCRA violations. | §802(a) is a jurisdictional shift, not a change in substantive rights. | §802(a) does not alter substantive rights/liabilities; it changes forum. |
| Attorney fees under §802(b) | Costs and fees may be awarded if §802(a) is satisfied. | Fees issue not ripe since no prevailing party yet. | Not reached; issue not before court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1994) (establishes a three-step retroactivity framework)
- Ward v. Dixie Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 595 F.3d 164 (4th Cir. 2010) (requires express congressional directive to apply retroactively)
- Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (U.S. 1995) (retroactivity where new law overturns judgments absent clear congressional intent)
- Landgraf (cited again), 511 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1994) (foundation for retroactivity analysis)
- Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer, 520 U.S. 939 (U.S. 1997) (retroactivity context for statutory changes; jurisdictional distinctions)
- Testa v. Katt, 330 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1947) (historical context of federal protections extending to state actions)
- Onslow Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. United States, 728 F.2d 628 (4th Cir. 1984) (reading SCRA with deference to servicemembers' protections)