United States ex rel. Air Control Technologies, Inc. v. Pre Con Industries, Inc.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13314
9th Cir.2013Background
- Miller Act requires a payment bond for labor/materials on a federal project; action must be brought within one year after last labor or material supplied.
- ACT sued PCI and FNIC on Miller Act claim and asserted federal jurisdiction with supplemental state-law claims.
- District court dismissed ACT’s Miller Act claim as untimely under Celanese Coatings, treating the period as jurisdictional.
- Project involved VA construction; ACT performed HVAC work and later faced termination in November 2009; PCI rented ACT’s equipment.
- ACT filed complaint on March 14, 2011; district court born to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; ACT appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Miller Act’s one-year limit jurisdictional or a claim-processing rule? | ACT contends the period is not jurisdictional. | PCI adheres to Celanese’s jurisdictional reading. | Claim-processing rule; not jurisdictional. |
| If not jurisdictional, may district court dismiss under 12(b)(6) for timeliness and remand for further proceedings? | ACT argues remand is required for proper analysis. | Court may dismiss if timeliness evident on face of complaint. | Dismissal vacated; remand for proceedings; timeliness not facially shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celanese Coatings Co. v. Gullard, 504 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1974) (Miller Act limitations not clearly jurisdictional prior to higher authority)
- Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 131 S. Ct. 1197 (U.S. 2011) (bright-line framework for jurisdictional vs. nonjurisdictional)
- Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006) (filing deadlines generally nonjurisdictional unless clearly stated)
- Auburn Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Barton, 133 S. Ct. 825 (U.S. 2013) (strict jurisdictional analysis not to apply absent clear text)
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (U.S. 2010) (distinguishes jurisdictional vs. nonjurisdictional limitations)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (U.S. 2007) (textual basis for jurisdictional deadlines historically)
- John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (U.S. 2008) (historical context for jurisdictional treatment of deadlines)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (U.S. 2010) (limits on tolling/anime of limitations; remedial purpose emphasized)
- United States ex rel. Pippin v. J.R. Youngdale Constr. Co., 923 F.2d 146 (9th Cir. 1991) (timeliness analysis on 12(b)(6) standard)
- Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2004) (use of 12(b)(1) factual attacks in jurisdictional challenges)