*1 in- upon inference built upon a were based supports knowledge that he believes ference, factual basis. More- a with no true asking for war entry prior no-knock over, specific to there was no information rant, usurp the role may nonetheless no-knock permitted home that decide on his own whether the Doran magistrate and As a view that cases involv- presence. entry. and announce his The officers’ to knock noted, recently excepted drugs weapons court has should be panel ing of our know, searching, principle before the officers the knock-and-announce “when from they justify a that believe support of circumstances finds no the Constitution. entry, Nonetheless, it seems more consistent adopted by no-knock been it has now a neu Amendment to ask with the Fourth majority in this case. This stands intruding before judge approval tral Supreme with the Court’s knock-and- odds v. United States upon privacy.” citizen’s an in- jurisprudence, and leaves announce 1075, 1082 Cir. Scroggins, 361 F.3d no redress for nocent man with 2004). Indeed, showing police “[t]he govern- unconstitutional unreasonable and warrant is to obtain a no-knock must make fair- accept conduct. I cannot mental justi make to showing they must the same respect I would ness of such a result. fy dispense with the their own decision jury’s verdict and affirm the district court. Only requirement. knock-and-announce added). (emphasis timing differs.” today, timing not even the differs:
After but withhold may
Officers seek a warrant authorization, even request for no-knock justify no-knock in they when later their In re: ADC TELECOMMUNI entirely they on information knew trusion CATIONS, INC. SECURI they the warrant. sought before TIES LITIGATION noted, nothing As the district court Kinermon, individually and on Wanda sought changed from the time the officers similarly behalf of all others situat they and the time executed warrant ed; Feldheim, Plaintiffs, Blime anony- police the search. The received the July tip mous in this case on Tucker; Heim; D. Thomas Willis delayed explanation, Williamson Without Koetter, Plaintiffs- Thomas C. August until request his for a warrant Appellants, received the 1998. Even after officers warrant, the search they perform did not Switz; Cadogan; Robert ADC William Certainly, there is August until Telecommunications, logic appellants’ assertion questionable Appellees. Defendants - they concerned about an active were all methamphetamine lab and of its attend- No. 04-2537. dangers they nearly ant when took Appeals, Court of
month to for the lab. search Eighth Circuit. conclusion, I In find no reasonableness 18, 2005. Submitted: March entry” “dynamic in the into the Dorans’ 6, 2005. Filed: June executing night. home in the dead of exigency purported officers knew that the stale, largely unvarying,
was based on information,
uncorroborated which turned entirely suspicions
out to be untrue. Their *2 Ottensoser,
U. argued, York, Seth New Anderson, NY (Carolyn Glass Minneapolis, MN, and Peter Binkow of Angeles, Los CA, brief), on the for appellant. Carter, Peter argued, W. Minneapolis, (Mitchell MN Granberg W. and John Rock, brief), on the appellee. MURPHY, HANSEN, Before and SMITH, Judges. Circuit SMITH, Judge. Heim, Tucker,
Willis D. Thomas and “Heim”) Thomas C. Koetter (collectively a complaint against filed ADC Telecom- munications, Inc., Cadogan, William “ADC”) (collectively Robert Switz 20(a) sections of the Securities Exchange allegedly Act of 1934 for dis- seminating materially misleading false and information investing public. The district court1 dismissed the complaint, concluding that it was filed outside the relevant statute of period. limitations issue before the district court and now on appeal, Congress’s is whether enactment Act of 1658(b)(1), retroactively U.S.C. revives brought stale claims under the Securities Act of Exchange 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(47). We conclude that the Sar- banes-Oxley expired Act does not revive claims and affirm the district court. Ericksen, 1. The Honorable Joan N. United sota. Judge States District for the District of Minne- II. Discussion Background
I. dispute as to are not The facts the district court’s de review We Heim, along case. of events timing de of statute-of-limitations termination investors, JLG, ADC com- purchased Servs., other with Inc. v. Bldg. novo. Erection *3 28, (8th Cir.2004). 2000 and November 800, mon stock between 376 F.3d 802 28, During period, that ADC 2001. path March the for landmarks show Well-settled misleading state- false and allegedly made application of interpreting the retroactive business its revenue and regarding ments Owner-Operator Indep. statute. See 2001, 28, is- Prime, Inc., ADC Ass’n, On March prospects. New Inc. v. Drivers its announcing (8th Cir.2003). that press release 1001, sued 1006-07 earnings share for the forma pro sales and against legis retroactive presumption “[A] would be lower in 2001 quarter second jurispru in our deeply lation is rooted day, ADC stock That same expected. than Landgraf v. USI (quoting Id. dence.” share, an per from 244, 265, to plummeted Prods., 114 511 S.Ct. $8.21 Film U.S. high (1994)). on December alleged period 1483, pre $26.43 The L.Ed.2d 229 128 26, 2003, 11, February about 23 2000. On “[ejlementary sumption arises because later, in this complaint the first months that of fairness dictate indi considerations filed. case was opportunity an to should have viduals and to conform their know what the law is that at the time disputed It not is also accordingly.” Id. conduct on March cause of action accrued Heim’s 2001, of limitations 28, the relevant statute First, if a court must determine Pleva, year. Lampf, Lipkind, was one See expressly prescribed the Congress has Gilbertson, 501 U.S. Prupis Petigrow & Landgraf, reach. 511 statute’s intended 2773, 350, 364, 115 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. 280, If Congress U.S. S.Ct. (1991) (holding that a federal securities reach, no prescribed the “there is need has “within fraud action must be commenced judicial rules.” to resort to default discovery of the facts year one after Second, expressly not stat Congress if and within three constituting the violation retroactivity applies, a court must ed that violation.”). Thus, Heim’s years after such the statute would have a examine whether 28, on March claim was time barred effect; is, it retroactive “whether expiration months after Four party possessed impair claim, 30, 2002, July Congress Heim’s on acted, liability party’s he increase a when Act, and ex enacted the conduct, past impose or new duties limitations from one tended the statute of respect already to transactions com with discovery. from As year years to two any of Id. If the statute would do pleted.” such, 26, 2003, February complaint Heim’s that the things, presumption these within the statute of limitations was filed absent clear con govern, statute does not Sarbanes-Oxley Act. amended as otherwise. Id. gressional intent timing of events this case estab The Act, Part of the one crucial fact. Heim’s claims were lishes 1658(b), prior amended the stat- U.S.C. 2002, 28, prior on March time barred by providing: ute of limitations Sarbanes-Oxley Act. of the the enactment (a) right ... of action that private [A] critical issue in this case is whether fraud, deceit, manipu- a claim of applies Act retroac involves lation, or contrivance in contravention February Heim’s tively, and enables concerning the regulatory requirement stale claims. complaint to revive laws, 30, 2002, prior July securities as defined section filed would not be 3(a)(47) revived, Exchange of the Act Securities whereas claims filed on or after (15 78c(a)(47)), may July [§ ] of 1934 U.S.C. would be revived. We find brought be not later than the earlier discrepancy to create an ambiguity as of— of the Sar-
(1)
banes-Oxley
Act.
years
discovery
after the
violation;
constituting
facts
or
Congress
Because
did
expressly
not
(2) years
after such violation.
state its intent to have the Sarbanes-Oxley
(b)
DATE.-The limita-
EFFECTIVE
claims,
Act revive stale
we turn to the
period provided by
tions
section
part
test,
second
Landgraf
which
Code,
of title
as added requires us to “determine whether the new
*4
section,
by
apply
pro-
shall
to all
effect, i.e.,
statute would have retroactive
by
ceedings addressed
this section that
it
impair
whether
would
rights
party
30,
[July
are commenced on or after the
acted,
possessed when he
increase a par
2002,]
of
date
enactment of this Act.
ty’s liability
conduct,
past
for
or impose
(c) NO CREATION OF ACTIONS.— new duties with respect
to transactions
Nothing in this section shall create a
already completed.” Landgraf, 511 U.S.
new, private right of action.
280,
context,
at
A would alter the substantive of a reading literal (in party party’s liability”) Act’s and effective-date clause would lead to a increase omitted).2 puzzling result. Specifically, punctuation stale claims ternal Bowersox, (8th 2. We must note that a retroactive extension of ols v. 172 F.3d Cir.1999) (“When a statute of and limitations revival of stale application a new limita- through application claims of a period wholly tion eliminate claims for statute of limitations are different. Nich- Cf. of a new statute Appeals Retroactive Court The United States newly legislation enacted a thor occurs when provided Circuit Second action that have al- to causes of refusing applied opinion and reasoned ough well change time of the ready accrued retroactively apply law, or not suit has regardless Enter. of whether claims. See Act to revive stale v. Hughes Co. In a more recent been filed. See at 407. Mortg., 391 F.3d Aircraft 939, 946, Schumer, rel. 520 U.S. decision, agreed stat U.S. ex Seventh (1997) 138 L.Ed.2d [Enterprise persuasive S.Ct. ing, ] find “[w]e (“ principle legal effect explana the ... ‘The nothing to add to have Bear, Co., ordinarily un- conduct should be assessed tion.” Foss Stearns Cir.2005). conduct law that existed when the Further der the ap- and universal more, place that have ad took has timeless all the district courts ” Film issue, peal.’ (quoting Landgraf v. USI save the United States dressed the Prods., 244, 265, 114 S.Ct. District of 511 U.S. District Court for the Middle (1994)) (internal citations Florida, L.Ed.2d 229 concluded that the Sar- 128 have omitted)). Thus, anytime legislation new banes-Oxley Act does not revive stale Biochem, See, ac- Enzo to causes of action that have e.g., applies claims. Glaser v. *5 (E.D.Va.2003) Inc., legisla- F.Supp.2d prior 724 crued to the enactment of the 303 aff'd Cir.2005) tion, part, Fed.Appx. in 126 593 it has a retroactive effect. This opinion); Heritage In re of actions that (unpublished brings to mind two classes (C.D.Cal. Litig., F.Supp.2d by Bond 1132 legislation- can be affected 2003); v. Dean Witter but see Roberts that have accrued and which suit those Reynolds, No. 8:02-CV-2115-T-26 time of the already been filed at the (M.D.Fla. EAJ, (in slip op., 2003 cases), WL pending legislation other words 2003) (unpublished opinion). March which and those that have accrued but for in today decision is accord with the Our yet Congress has not been filed. suit majority of courts that have addressed this new statute apply intended to the issue. cases, limitations to second class of of the Company the first. See Public but not
III. Conclusion Accounting Reform and Investor Protec- Sarbanes-Oxley Act We hold that the tion Act of No. 107-204 Pub.L. (“The retroactively to revive apply 804(b), does not 116 Stat. limita- prior statute of limita- by claims on which period provided tions section of Code, had run and affirm the district tions ... ap- title shall dismissing complaint. Heim’s court’s order ... ply proceedings to all that are com- menced on or after the date of enactment HANSEN, in Judge, concurring added)). (emphasis of the Act.” That Con- judgment. limit effect gress chose to the retroactive only statute’s reach Congress I could not have been of the new believe any class of cases does not make it apply more clear its intent to second Thus, retroactively, respectfully Act but less retroactive. I dis- that it Congress’s separate agree intent to re- with the court to the extent because clear, I no clear retroactive expired hinges vive claims is not so concur its conclusion of applica- lack judgment. in the court’s intent on the of the statute’s retroactive.”) impermissibly (emphasis add- or remedial actions consid- substantive law, ed). timely ered old general propo- As a pending tion to cases.
sition, language I hold that the used Congress establishing the effective §of Act
date
clearly reflects intent to new apply its retroactively,
statute least to those yet
cases not filed.
Entirely separate from the issue Congress apply
whether intended to retroactively is the question
statute Congress
whether also intended to revive already
stale claims-those claims that had
expired one-year under the statute before legislation.
enactment of the new “Con- can revive stale claims do
gress but must clearly.” Corp.
so Resolution Trust (5th Cir.1994).
Seale, Be- not Congress express
cause did its clear claims,
intent to revive stale and thus dis- expectations potential
turb the settled legal justification
defendants who had an limi-
rely expired one-year on statute of
tation, judgment I concur in the court’s
that the Act does not re-
vive claims that had expired prior
enactment of the Act. America,
UNITED STATES of Appellee,
Plaintiff - ROBINSON,
David L. Defendant-
Appellant.
No. 04-1892. Appeals,
United States Court of
Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan.
Filed: June