U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART VI— PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS › Chapter CHAPTER 176— FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER A— DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

28 U.S.C. § 3003

Rules of construction

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Terms.—For purposes of this chapter—(1) the terms “includes” and “including” are not limiting;(2) the term “or” is not exclusive; and(3) the singular includes the plural.(b)Effect on Rights of the United States.—This chapter shall not be construed to curtail or limit the right of the United States under any other Federal law or any State law—(1) to collect taxes or to collect any other amount collectible in the same manner as a tax;(2) to collect any fine, penalty, assessment, restitution, or forfeiture arising in a criminal case;(3) to appoint or seek the appointment of a receiver; or(4) to enforce a security agreement.(c)Effect on Other Laws.—This chapter shall not be construed to supersede or modify the operation of—(1) title 11;(2) admiralty law;(3)section 3713 of title 31;(4) section 303 of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1673);(5) a statute of limitation applicable to a criminal proceeding;(6) the common law or statutory rights to set-off or recoupment;(7) any Federal law authorizing, or any inherent authority of a court to provide, injunctive relief;(8) the authority of a court—(A) to impose a sanction under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;(B) to appoint a receiver to effectuate its order; or(C) to exercise the power of contempt under any Federal law;(9) any law authorizing the United States to obtain partition, or to recover possession, of property in which the United States holds title; or(10) any provision of any other chapter of this title, except to the extent such provision is inconsistent with this chapter.(d)Preemption.—This chapter shall preempt State law to the extent such law is inconsistent with a provision of this chapter.(e)Effect on Rights of the United States Under Foreign and International Law.—This chapter shall not be construed to curtail or limit the rights of the United States under foreign law, under a treaty or an international agreement, or otherwise under international law.(f)Applicability of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.—Except as provided otherwise in this chapter, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply with respect to actions and proceedings under this chapter.(Added Pub. L. 101–647, title XXXVI, § 3611, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4935.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, referred to in subsecs. (c)(8)(A) and (f), are set out in the Appendix to this title.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective 180 days after Nov. 29, 1990, and applicable with respect to certain actions for debts owed the United States pending in court on that effective date, see section 3631 of Pub. L. 101–647, set out as a note under section 3001 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 66 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: United States v. Badger, 818 F.3d 563 (10th Cir. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Badger, 818 F.3d 563 (10th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “” 28 U.S.C. § 3003 (c). The statute therefore does not limit a federal court’s authority with respect to disgorgement injunctions or contempt sanctions.”
Hillen v. City of Many Trees (In re CVAH, Inc.), 570 B.R. 816 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2017). · cites it 3× “” 28 U.S.C. § 3003 (c). Trustee insists this is not so.”
MC Asset Recovery LLC v. Commerzbank A.G. (In Re Mirant Corp.), 675 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “” 28 U.S.C. § 3003 (c) (emphasis added). MCAR argues that § 3003(c) simply means that the FDCPA should be treated exactly like any other “applicable law” available to the trustee in bankruptcy.”
United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2011). “” 28 U.S.C. § 3003 (b)(2). Thus, the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to the satisfaction of civil judgments, e.”
Exp.-Imp. Bank of United States v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., 609 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, although the FDCPA expressly “preempt[s] State Law to the extent such law is inconsistent with a provision of [the FDCPA],” 28 U.S.C. § 3003 (d), there appears to be no inconsistency between the FDCPA’s procedural framework and New York state laws that govern the…”
United States v. DeCay, 620 F.3d 534 (5th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “28 U.S.C. § 3003 (d) (stating that the FDCPA “shall preempt State law to the extent such law is inconsistent with a provision of this chapter”).”
United States v. Carney, 796 F. Supp. 700 (E.D.N.Y 1992). · cites it 5× “In support of its argument, the government cites 28 U.S.C. § 3003 (b)(1) which states: This chapter shall not be construed to curtail or limit the right of the United States under any other Federal law or any State law to collect taxes or to collect any other amount collectible…”
United States v. Ghassan Elashi, 789 F.3d 547 (5th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “(citing 28 U.S.C. § 3003 (b)(1)). Similarly, in United States v.”
United States v. Timilty, 148 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “28 U.S.C. § 3003 (b)(2) (emphasis added).”
United States v. Idema, 118 F. App'x 740 (4th Cir. 2005). “” 28 U.S.C. § 3003 (b). 6 . We have also considered the other arguments raised on appeal by Idema and find them to be without merit.”
United States v. Gianelli, 543 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2008). “” 28 U.S.C. § 3003 (d). Contrary to Gianelli’s argument, the California state law at issue, California Civil Procedure Code section 683.”
United States v. Frank P. Bongiorno, United States of Am. v. Frank P. Bongiorno, 106 F.3d 1027 (1st Cir. 1997). “The government, moreover, can attempt to collect the restitution order by resort to other civil remedies, see 28 U.S.C. § 3003 (b) (providing that the United States retains its authority under laws other than the FDCPA to collect debts owed to the government); see also Fed.”
Show all 66 citing cases →
28 U.S.C. § 3003(d): 1 case
United States Small Bus. Admin. v. Bensal, 853 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2017).
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.