28 U.S.C. § 2416

Time for commencing actions brought by the United States—Exclusions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
For the purpose of computing the limitations periods established in section 2415, there shall be excluded all periods during which—(a) the defendant or the res is outside the United States, its territories and possessions, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; or(b) the defendant is exempt from legal process because of infancy, mental incompetence, diplomatic immunity, or for any other reason; or(c) facts material to the right of action are not known and reasonably could not be known by an official of the United States charged with the responsibility to act in the circumstances; or(d) the United States is in a state of war declared pursuant to article I, section 8, of the Constitution of the United States.(Added Pub. L. 89–505, § 1, July 18, 1966, 80 Stat. 305.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 111 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: United States Ex Rel. Hunt v. Cochise Consultancy, Inc., 887 F.3d 1081 (11th Cir. 2018).
United States Ex Rel. Hunt v. Cochise Consultancy, Inc., 887 F.3d 1081 (11th Cir. 2018). · cites it 4× “Senator Grassley said in a floor statement that Congress borrowed the language in § 3731(b)(2) from 28 U.S.C. § 2416 , which sets forth the limitations period that generally applies to other actions brought by the United States.”
United States Ex Rel. Landis v. Tailwind Sports Corp., 51 F. Supp. 3d 9 (D.D.C. 2014). · cites it 5× “See 28 U.S.C. § 2416 (e). Finally, the relator argues that the plaintiffs’ claims are tolled by the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act, ch.”
United States v. Inc. Vill. of Island Park, 791 F. Supp. 354 (E.D.N.Y 1992). · cites it 5× “Compare 28 U.S.C. § 2416 (c) (stat *361 utes of limitations on actions brought by the United States are tolled as long as “facts material to the right of action are not known and reasonably could not be known by an official of the United States charged with the responsibility to…”
United States Ex Rel. Sikkenga v. Regence Bluecross Blueshield, 472 F.3d 702 (10th Cir. 2006). · cites it 8× “Additionally, the Senate, when debating the 1986 amendments to the False Claims Act stated: The committee has added a tolling provisions [sic] to the False Claims Act which is adopted directly from 28 U.S.C. § 2416 (c). W hile section 2416(c) is a provision of general…”
United States v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 972 F. Supp. 2d 593 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). · cites it 3× “” 28 U.S.C. § 2416 (c); see 132 Cong. Rec. 20,536 (1986) (statement of Sen.”
United States v. Intrados/Int'l Mgmt. Grp., 265 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2002). · cites it 4× “28 U.S.C. § 2416 (c). a. Unjust Enrichment The defendants suggest that the plaintiffs unjust enrichment claim is time barred because it is based in tort and subject to the three-year limitations period provided under 28 U.”
United States Ex Rel. Zissler v. Regents of the Univ., 992 F. Supp. 1097 (D. Minnesota 1998). · cites it 11× “28 U.S.C. § 2416 provides that the period during which “the facts material to the right of action are not known and reasonably could not be known by an official of the United States charged with the responsibility to act in the circumstances” shall be excluded “for the purpose…”
United States ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co., 710 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “, 28 U.S.C. § 2416 (d) (tolling provision for civil claims by the United States seeking money damages applies only when "the United States is in a state of war declared pursuant to article I, section 8, of the Constitution of the United States.”
Tronox Inc. v. Kerr McGee Corp. (In re Tronox Inc.), 503 B.R. 239 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013). · cites it 2× “28 U.S.C. § 2416 (c) provides: For the purpose of computing the limitations periods established in section 2415, there shall be excluded all periods during which— (c) facts material to the right of action are not known and reasonably could not be known by an official of the…”
In re Cardiac Devices Qui Tam Litig., 221 F.R.D. 318 (D. Conn. 2004). · cites it 2× “65 Accordingly, all common-law causes of action for restitution, unjust enrichment, and payment by mistake, arising out of claims filed prior to March 31, 1988, are dismissed without prejudice to the Government’s establishing that a different accrual date should be applied in a…”
United States v. Hess, 194 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir. 1999). · cites it 3× “Telluride Co., 146 F.3d 1241 , 1244 (10th Cir.”
Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Williams, 599 F. Supp. 1184 (D. Maryland 1984). · cites it 2× “2d 677 (1981); 28 U.S.C. § 2416 . Defendant suggests that County knew of the existence of its claims concerning RPA before April 28, 1980.”
— 28 U.S.C. § 2416(c) — 1 case
United States v. Golden Acres, Inc., 684 F. Supp. 96 (D. Del. 1988).
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.