Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractlawsuitbreach of contractplaintiffstatutemotionstatute of limitationsrescissionmotion to dismiss

contractlawsuitplaintiffjurisdictionstatutemotionstatute of limitationsmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Entines v. United States

Facts

The plaintiffs are Filipino veterans who served under U.S. command during World War II. They filed a lawsuit seeking back pay and veteran benefits, claiming that they were paid less than American soldiers. The First Supplemental Surplus Appropriation Rescission Act of 1946 denied them veteran benefits, leading to their claims for back pay and breach of contract. The court found that the claims were filed well after the statute of limitations had expired.

Plaintiffs here are Filipino World War II veterans or their survivors. Eleazar P. Andoque served initially with the Philippine Army and later with recognized guerrilla forces. Rev. Fr. Prisco E. Entines is the son of Enrique Hapa Entines, who died while serving with the Philippine Army guerrilla forces. Olympia A. Saarenas is the widow of Renato F. Saarenas, who also served with the Philippine Army guerrilla forces. Plaintiffs' suit, filed on November 22, 1996, is grounded in three theories: (1) claims for back pay based upon the difference between wages paid to American soldiers and those paid to Filipino soldiers during World War II; (2) takings claims based upon 38 U.S.C. 107(a) and its effective denial of veteran benefits to former members of the Philippine Army; and (3) claims for breach of express or implied-in-fact contracts for military services between the United States and members of the Philippine Army during World War II.

Issue

Whether the plaintiffs' claims for back pay and veteran benefits were barred by the six-year statute of limitations.

Rule

Claims under the Tucker Act must be filed within six years after they first accrue, as per 28 U.S.C. 2501.

The statute of limitations for suits brought under the Tucker Act is found in 28 U.S.C. 2501: 'Every claim of which the United States Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction shall be barred unless the petition thereon is filed within six years after such claim first accrues.'

Analysis

The court determined that the claims for back pay accrued when each veteran was discharged from active duty, and the takings claims accrued when the First Supplemental Surplus Appropriation Rescission Act became effective. Since the claims were filed decades after these events, the court found that the statute of limitations barred the claims.

The Court concludes that each of plaintiffs' claims accrued more than six years before they filed this suit, that plaintiffs have not established that tolling the statute of limitations is appropriate, and that the continuing claims doctrine is not applicable to the facts at issue. Plaintiffs' claims, therefore, are barred by the applicable six-year statute of limitations.

Conclusion

The court granted the government's motion to dismiss the veterans' claims, ruling that they were barred by the six-year statute of limitations.

Accordingly, the government's motion to dismiss is granted.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case because the court found that the plaintiffs' claims were untimely, having accrued more than six years before the lawsuit was filed.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Leopold v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

System Mgmt., Inc. v. Loiselle

V-A-K-, Matter of

Kaufman v. Holder

Farag v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs