U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART V— PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 111— GENERAL PROVISIONS

28 U.S.C. § 1658

Time limitations on the commencement of civil actions arising under Acts of Congress

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, a civil action arising under an Act of Congress enacted after the date of the enactment of this section may not be commenced later than 4 years after the cause of action accrues.(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), a private right of action that involves a claim of fraud, deceit, manipulation, or contrivance in contravention of a regulatory requirement concerning the securities laws, as defined in section 3(a)(47) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(47)), may be brought not later than the earlier of—(1) 2 years after the discovery of the facts constituting the violation; or(2) 5 years after such violation.(Added Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 313(a), Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5114; amended Pub. L. 107–204, title VIII, § 804(a), July 30, 2002, 116 Stat. 801.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The date of the enactment of this section, referred to in subsec. (a), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 101–650, which was approved Dec. 1, 1990.

Amendments

2002—Pub. L. 107–204 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2002 Amendment

Pub. L. 107–204, title VIII, § 804(b), July 30, 2002, 116 Stat. 801, provided that: “The limitations period provided by section 1658(b) of title 28, United States Code, as added by this section, shall apply to all proceedings addressed by this section that are commenced on or after the date of enactment of this Act [July 30, 2002].”

Effective Date

Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 313(c), Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5115, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [enacting this section] shall apply with respect to causes of action accruing on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 1, 1990].”

No Creation of Actions

Pub. L. 107–204, title VIII, § 804(c), July 30, 2002, 116 Stat. 801, provided that: “Nothing in this section [amending this section and enacting provisions set out as a note under this section] shall create a new, private right of action.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,348 cases (326 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 559 U.S. 633 (2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 559 U.S. 633 (2010). · cites it 11× “” 28 U. S. C. §1658 (b)(1). Construing this limitations statute for the first time, we hold that a cause of action accrues (1) when the plaintiff did in fact discover, or (2) when a rea sonably diligent plaintiff would have discovered, “the facts constituting the…”
United States v. Edgar Searcy, 880 F.3d 116 (4th Cir. 2018). · cites it 22× “Searcy argues that the four-year “catch-all” statute of limitations Congress enacted for civil actions, see 28 U.S.C. § 1658 (a), applies to civil commitment proceedings under the Adam Walsh Act.”
Lawrence E. Anthony, Jr. v. Btr Auto. Sealing Sys., Inc., 339 F.3d 506 (6th Cir. 2003). · cites it 15× “However, on December 1, 1990, Congress passed 28 U.S.C. § 1658 , a general statute of limitations applicable to all federal statutes enacted after that date, which states in pertinent part: “Except as otherwise provided by law, a civil action arising under an Act of Congress…”
Giovanniello v. ALM MEDIA, LLC, 660 F.3d 587 (2d Cir. 2011). · cites it 35× “judgment of dismissal entered in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Janet Bond Arterton, Judge ), we consider whether a state statute of limitations is among the "laws" referenced in the TCPA's "otherwise permitted" provision, or whether the…”
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113 (2005). · cites it 6× “This is so, he claims, because § 332(c)(7)(B)(v)'s requirement that actions be filed within 30 days falls within § 1658's prefatory clause, "Except as otherwise provided by law.”
Andrea Jones v. Southpeak Interactive Corp., 777 F.3d 658 (4th Cir. 2015). · cites it 8× “In doing so, we hold that Sarbanes-Oxley Act retaliatory discharge claims are subject to the four-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 1658 (a), and not the two-year limitations period set forth in § 1658(b)(1).”
Keitt v. New York City, 882 F. Supp. 2d 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). · cites it 4× “1836 , leading Congress, on December 1, 1990, to enact 28 U.S.C. § 1658 to supply “a general 4-year limitations period for any federal statute subsequently enacted without one of its own.”
Jacob McGreevey v. Phh Mortg. Corp., 897 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2018). · cites it 12× “The panel held that the federal catchall statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 1658 (a) applies to private suits alleging violations of § 303(c) of the SCRA, an Act of Congress enacted after 1990.”
China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, 138 S. Ct. 1800 (2018). · cites it 3× “The Act has both a two-year statute of limitations and a five-year statute of re- pose, 28 U. S. C. §1658 (b). Here, the accrual date for purposes of the Act’s limitation period is February 3, 2011, and for the repose period, November 12, 2009.”
Fowler v. Upmc Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3rd Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “UPMC argues that these claims are also subject to Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations, asking us to again “borrow” the two-year statute of limitations applicable to similar claims arising under Pennsylvania law.”
Koch v. Christie's Int'l PLC, 699 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2012). · cites it 3× “Because it was a securities fraud action, 28 U.S.C. § 1658 (b) governed the accrual rule in Merck .”
Despain v. BNSF Ry. Co., 186 F. Supp. 3d 988 (D. Ariz. 2016). · cites it 16× “28 U.S.C. § 1658 (a). Whether the catch-all limitations period applies to the Federal Railroad Safety Act’s kick-out provision appears to be a question of first *990 impression, though a few courts have addressed whether the limitations period applies to a very similar statute.”
Show all 1,348 citing cases →
— 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a) — 1 case
Worsham v. Fairfield Resorts, Inc., 981 A.2d 24 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2009).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1658(b) — 2 cases
Andrea Jones v. Southpeak Interactive Corp., 777 F.3d 658 (4th Cir. 2015). “In doing so, we hold that Sarbanes-Oxley Act retaliatory discharge claims are subject to the four-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 1658 (a), and not the two-year limitations period set forth in § 1658(b)(1).”
Horton v. Hamilton, 2015 OK 6 (Okla. 2015).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1658(b)(1) — 1 case
Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency v. Nomura Holding Am., Inc., 60 F. Supp. 3d 479 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1658(b)(2) — 1 case
Golan v. Puleo, 480 F. Supp. 2d 1325 (S.D. Fla. 2007).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.