United States v. Healy Tibbitts Construction Co.

Good Law
607 F. Supp. 540·23 ERC (BNA) 1517·23 ERC 1517·1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20541
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 19, 1985C-83-3072California1,741 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vukasin, J.

AMENDED ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Introduction

The question before the Court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment is whether actions brought by the United States pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act [“FWPCA”], 33 U.S.C. § 1321 , are subject to the statute of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2415 and, if so, which subdivision of that statute should properly apply. Defendant urges that the remedy provided by the FWPCA is ground ed on a tort theory of liability, rendering actions brought thereunder subject to the three-year time-bar of 28 U.S.C. § 2415 (b). The United States contends that FWPCA suits are subject to no limitations period whatsoever; in the alternative, the government maintains that if a statute of limitations must be imposed the restitutionary nature of the remedy furnished by the FWPCA brings such lawsuits within the ambit of the six-year time-bar for quasi-contractual actions provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2415 (a). For the reasons herein stated, the Court adopts the latter view.

FACTS

The factual background of this case is uncomplicated. On September 6, 1978, a barge owned by defendant ran aground during rough…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.