## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 2806 C HA RLES C. M I DD L E T ON, S R ., P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. C ITY OF C HI CAGO, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Divisi on. No . 07 C4206

—Jam es F. H old erm an, Chief Judge.
A RGUED A PRI L 14, 2009

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 24, 2009

Befo re K ANN E , R OV NER, a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . C h a r l es M id d let on se rv ed in th e U nited States A ir Force from 1960 u nt il he w as ho nora b ly d ischa rged i n D ecem ber 1989

. A lm ost four years l ate r, i n 199 3, he a pp l i ed f ortwo posi ti ons w i th the Ci ty ofChica go. Despi te i nter vi ew i ng f orboth posi ti ons, M id d let on r ec eiv ed n eit h er . Th e C ity info rm ed h im in N o ve m ber 199 4 th athe ha d no t be ens el ec te d fo rthe fi rst j ob, and he n ever h eard back ab ou t the other.2 N o. 08

- 2806 N ear l y thi rt een y ear s l ate r, o n J uly 26 , 20 07, M i dd l eto n s u e d t h e C ity , claim in g th at it refu se d to h ire h im b ec au se of h i s m ilita ry se rv ice in v iola tio n of th e U n if or m ed Se rv i ces Em plo ym ent a nd Reem plo ym ent Ri ghts A ct o f19 94 ( U SERRA ) , Pub. L. N o. 10 3- 353, 10 8 S tat
. 31 49 ( c o di fi e d a s a men de d a t 3 8 U. S
. C. § 4301 ets eq . )
. On Jun e 23, 2008 , the d istri ct cou rt h e ld that M idd leton’s U SE R R A cla im w as ba rre d by th e fo u r-y ea r “c a t c h all” st atut e o fl i m i ta ti o ns pr o vi ded by2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 65 8( a) , a nd i t gr anted the City ’ s m oti on to dism i ss his fo u rth am en ded co m pla i nt. M i dd l eto n fi l ed hi s no ti ce o fappeal on J uly18
. A pp ro xi m ate l y three m onths l ate r, o n Octobe r 10, 20 08, Con g r es s en ac te d the V ete r an s’ Be ne fi ts I m pr o ve m en t A ct ( VB I A ) , Pub. L. N o. 11 0- 389, 12 2 S tat
. 41 45 ( codi fi ed in sca tte re d s ecti ons of 38 U
. S. C.)
. Rel evant to th is appe al, the VBI A co nt aine d a pr o vi sio n s ta tingtha t no l i m i ta ti o ns pe r i o d a ppl i es t o USE R R A cl ai m s: “ I fa ny per son s ee k s to fi l e a co m pl ainto rc l ai m wi ththe S e c r e t a r y [ o fLab o r ] , the Mer i tS y s t e ms Pr o t e c t i o n Bo a r d, o ra F ede r alo rS ta te co ur t unde rthi s ch apt era l l eg i ng a vi o l at i o n o f th i s ch apt er, th er e sh al l be no l i m i t on the peri od f orfi l i ng the co m pla i nt o r cl ai m . ” VBI A § 311, 38 U
. S. C
. § 4327(b). M i dd l e t o n’ s a pp e a lr a i s e s t wo i s s ue s : ( 1 ) wh e the r § 1 6 5 8 ’ s f o u r - y e a rs t a t u t e o fl i mi t a t i o n s b a r r e d h i s c l a i m; a nd ( 2 ) e v e n i fi td i d, whe the rthe V BI A’ s r e c e nta men dm ent r etr oac tivel y r evi ves thi s l aw sui t. W e r evi ew d en ovo the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s o rdergr anti ng a Rule 12(b) ( 6) m oti on t o dism i ss base d on the sta tu te ofl i m i tat i ons.N o. 08

- 2806 3 D o m ing uez v. Hend ley, 5 4 5 F
. 3 d 5 8 5 , 5 8 8 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 )
. We ac c ep t a s t ru e a ll fac tu al a lleg a t i o n s in th e c om p lain t, see Co l ev . U. S
. C a p i t al , 3 8 9 F
. 3d 719, 724 (7th Cir. 2004), m eani ng tha t, f orpurp os es ofthi s a pp eal, we m ust ass um e t hat the Ci ty re fused to hi re M i dd l eto n beca use ofhi s pri or m il i tar y s er vi ce. M i dd l eto n’s co m pla i nt does not al l ege thatthe City en gag ed i n i m properco nd uct after N ove m ber 1994, and i f the f our- yea r sta tute o f lim ita tio n s a p p lies an d is u n affe c te d by th e V B IA , his c l a i m i s b a r r e d.

I
. A p p l i c a b i l i tyo

f 2 8 U. S
. C
. § 1 6 5 8 ( a ) t o US E R R A C l a i ms M i dd l eto n fi rs t ar gues that the four- yea r sta tute of lim ita tio n s fo u n d in 2 8 U .S.C . § 16 58 d id n otap p ly to h is U SERRA cl ai m ag ai nst the Ci ty. The di str i ct cou rt di sagr eed and hel d that M i dd l eto n’s cla i m was i nd eed ti m ebar re d. W e a gr ee w i th the di str i ct c ourt
. On D ecem ber1, 19 90, Congr ess e n acte d § 16 58 i n re sp ons e t o c riti cism regard ing the l ack of a un iform fed er al s ta t u t e o f lim ita tio n s. Se eJone s v. R. R. D onn e l l ey & Son s Co. , 541 U .S . 3 6 9 , 377-80 (2004). A m ong other p urposes , Congr ess so ught t o m i nim ize the federa lco urts ’ pr ac ti ce o f bo r r o wi ng st atut es o f l i m i ta ti o ns fr o m the st at es . Se ei d. The r esul t w as a “catch al l ” s tatute o fl i m i tati ons f orfedera lcl ai m s: Ex cept a s o ther w i se provi ded byl aw , a ci vi lact i on ar i si ng under a n A ct o fCongr ess e n ac ted after the date o fthe enactm ent o fth is sect i on m ay not be c om m en c ed l ate r than 4 yea rs afterthe cause ofact i on a ccr ues.4 N o. 08

- 2806 28 U. S
. C. § 1 6 5 8 ( a )
. T hi s t e xtma k e s c l e a rtha ta nyact i on “ar i si ng under” a fe deralst atute enac ted afterDecem ber1, 19 90 , i s s u bj ec t t o § 16 58
. Se ei d. ; Jo nes , 54 1 U.S
. at38 0. N ear l y four yea rs l ate r, o n October 13, 19 94, Congr ess passed U SE R R A
. The st atute di d not incl ud e a n expres s sta tute ofl i m i tat i on s. C ongr ess ’ s o nl y r efer ence to a l i m i tat i ons peri od w as that “[ n]o S tat e s tatute o fl i m i tatio n s s h all a p p ly to an y p ro c ee d in g u n d er th is c h ap te r.” USERRA § 2, 38 U. S
. C. § 43 23 ( c) ( 6) ( 19 94 ). U SERRA did not m enti on the federa l sta tute of l i m i tat i ons i n § 1 658, nordi d i t e xpress ly p rovi de that cl ai m s under the ne w law w ere exe m p t from any li m itations p eriod altogeth er. A t fi rst blush , the an sw er to o u r qu estion ap p ears f ai rl y s tr ai ghtf or w ar d . Afte r al l, wh en i nter preting a st atut e, we m us t b egin wi thi ts t ex t an d a ss um e “tha t th e or dinar y m eaning ofthatl anguage acc urat el y e xpresse s the l e g i s l a t i v e p ur pose. ” E ng ine M frs. A ss’n v . S. C o a st A irQ uality Mgm t. D is t. , 54 1 U. S
. 24 6, 25 2 ( 20 04 ) ( quo ta ti o ns om i tt e d)

. Unl e s s Co ng r e s s e xp r e s s e d a c l e a ri nt e nt i o n to th e c on tr ar y, a s ta tu te ’s la n gu ag e is co n c lu siv e. Lamiev. U .S. Tr. , 540 U
. S. 526, 534 ( 2004 ) ( “I t is w ell establ i shed th at ‘w h en th e s ta tu te ’s la n gu ag e i s p l ain , th e s ole fun cti on o fthe cour ts

— at l eas t where the di sposi ti on requ ired by th e tex t is no t absu rd

— i s t o enf or ce i t a ccor ding to i ts ter m s. ’ ” ( quoti ng Ha rtfo rd U nd e r w riters Ins. Co. v . Uni on Pl an t ers Ba n k, N. A. , 530 U
. S. 1, 6 ( 2000 )) ). S i m pl y a ppl y i ngthe l an g ua g e o f§ 1 65 8( a) t o USERRA in d ica te s t h at t h e l a tt er w as su bj ec t t o th e fo rm er : th is is a ci vil ac tio n; U SERRA i s a n act ofCongr ess ; i t was enacte d w el lafter§ 1658 ( a) ; and it did not “otherwis e pr o v i de ” f o ra di ffe r e ntl i mi t a t i o ns p e r i o d.N o. 08

- 2806 5 A s w ith m an y l egal i ssu es, ho w ever, cl ear solutions are eas i l y c l ouded. M i dd l eto n offer s tw o ar gum ents in an a t t e mp tt o s a l v a g e h i s th i r t e e n - y e a r - o l d U S E R R A c l a i m. First , h e avers th at U SE R R A w as no t “en acte d after” § 1 65 8, as th e Su p re m e C ou rtd e f i n e d th at p h ra se in Jo nes , 541 U
. S. 369. Secon d , he claim s tha t U S E R R A ’s legi slative history and the D ep artm en t of L abor’s interpr e t a t i o n o fth e l a w in d i c a t e th a tC o n g r e s s n e v e rme a nt f o ra s ta tu te o fl i m i ta ti o ns t o ap p ly. I n the e nd, the cl o uds c l ea r, a nd we fi nd no th i ngtha t o vercom es the pla i n m eani ng o fthe sta tutory t ext.

A. USER RA Cr e at e d a Ne w Caus eof Act i on W e m ust fi rs t dete rm i ne wh ethera cause ofact i on under U SERRA “a ri s[ es] under an A ct o fCon gr ess enact ed after ” D ec em ber1, 19 90. 28 U
. S. C. § 1 658( a)
. A l though Con g r es s pas se d USERRA i n 1 994, it was the l at es t i n a se r i es o ffede r all aws s eeki ng t o pr o te ctthe abi l i tyo fo ur vet er ans t o obt ai n em plo ym ent upon r eturni ng to ci vi l i an l i fe. A ccor ding to M i d d let on, U SERRA di d not establ i sh a n e w cause ofact i on in 199 4, but i nstea d am ended it s predeces sor sta tute, com m onl y re fer re d t o as th e Ve te r an s’ Re empl o y m en t Ri g ht s Act o f1 974 ( VRR A ). SeePub. L. N o. 93- 508, § 404( a) , 88 St at. 15 78, 15 94 ( codi fi ed at 38 U
. S. C. § 2 021 ets eq . ) ( re cod ified a t 3 8 U.S
. C. § 4 301 ets eq . bythe Vete ra n s’ B en efi ts A ct o f19 92, Pub. L. N o. 10 2-5 68 , § 50 6, 10 6 S ta t. 4 3 20 , 434 0), am ended by U SE RRA
. Because the VRRA pre dated § 1 658, M i dd l eto n ar gues that t h e federa lst atute o fl i m i tat i ons does not apply.6 N o. 08

- 2806 I n Jo nes , the Suprem e Cour t hel d that “ a ca use o f acti on ‘ ar i s[ es] under an A ct o fCongr ess enact ed’ after De c e mbe r1 , 1 9 90

— a n d th erefore i s govern ed by § 1658’s 4- y ea r st atut e o fl i m i ta ti o ns

— i fthe pla i nti ff’ s cl ai m ag ai nst the defenda n t w as m ade poss ibl e bya post- 1990 enact
m en t.” 54 1 U .S. at 3 82 (alt er at ion in or igin al). T h is p rin c ip le g o ve r ns e ve n i fthe ne w l aw am en ded a pr ee xi st i ng l aw ; Congr ess o ften c re ate s new causes o fact i on by am ending exi sting st atute s, and § 1658( a) i s no t l i m i ted “t o enti re l y new secti ons ofthe U ni ted S tat es Code. ” Id. at 381. “Whatm at te r s i s the s ubs ta nt i ve e ffec t o fa n e na ct m en t

— th e cr ea ti o n o fne w ri g ht s o fa ct i o n a nd c o rresp o ndi ng l i abi l i ti es

— no t th e f o r m ati n whi chi t a p pea r s i n the Code. ” Id. As the Co ur t d i r ec te d, we m us t det er m i ne “w hetherthe pla i nti ffhas al l ege d a vi ol ati on of the re l evant sta tute as i t s tood pri orto Decem ber1, 19 90, o r whethe rhe rc l ai m s ne ce ss aril y de pen d o n a s ubs eque nt am endm ent. ” Id. at38 4. To answer that questi on, we re turn t o the VRRA , wh i ch Con g r es s pas se d i n 1 974. The VRRA provi ded ve te r an s w i th ce rt ai n ri ghts and prote cti ons up on thei r re turn t o the work f or ce, and i t ba rr ed em plo ym en t d i scr i m i nati on base d on a re ser vi st’ s m i l i tar y s er vice
. See Pub. L. N o. 93

- 508, se c. 40 4, § 2021 ( a)(B ), (b ) ( 3) , 88 S tat
. 15 78, 15 95- 96 ( 1974 ) . Th e o nl y r em edy av ai l abl e under the VRRA was i nj uncti ve re l i efand re cove ryof lo st w age s a nd bene fi ts. Id. se c. 40 4, § 2022
. I n 199 4, Congr ess r epl aced the VRRA w i th U SERRA “t o c lar ify, sim p lif y , an d , w h er e n ec es sa ry , s t re ngthe n th e exi sting v et er ans’ em plo ym ent a nd r eem plo ym ent r i ghtsN o. 08

- 2806 7 p ro vis ion s.” H .R . Re p . N o. 10 3-6 5(I), at 18 (19 93 ) (em p h as is ad d ed ), as repr i nt e d i n 1994 U
. S. C.C. A
. N
. 2449 , 24 51; s e eal s o S. Rep. N o. 103

- 158, at33 ( 1993 ) ( noting tha t U S ER RA “ wo ul d r e s t r uc t ur e , c l a r i fy, a nd i m prove ” th e VRR A ( em phasi s a dd ed))

. A m ong othe r i m prove m ents, i fa n e m pl o y ere ng ag ed i n wi l l fuldi sc r i m i na ti o n, U SERRA per m i tte d a pla i nti ffto se ek l i quidate d dam age s, a fo rm of re lief u n av aila b le u n d er th e V R R A
. See USERRA se c. 2 , § 4 32 4( c) ( 1) ( A)( i i i )
. W i ththa t ne w pro vi si o n, Co ngr ess co nver ted wh at had been a n equi tabl e cl ai m i nto a l eg alo ne , whi chb r o ughta long the c o r r es po ndi ngr i g ht to a j u ry tria l. See M a h er v. C ity of Chi. , 46 3 F
. S up p. 2d 837, 844 ( N
. D. I l l

. 2006 ) ( hol ding th at l i quidate d d am ages u nd er U SE R R A are pu nitive and therefore su bj ec t t o t ria l by j u ry ); cf. C a lder o n v . Witv o et, 99 9 F
. 2d 11 01 , 1 10 9 ( 7th Ci r . 1993) (ho l di ngtha t ac ti o ns s ee k i ng l i quidate d dam ag es u nd era differ ent s tatute a re “s uit s a tc o mm o n l a w” f o rp ur po s e s o fthe Seven th Am e nd

m en t’s righ t t o a j u ry tria l); Troy v. City of H a m pt on , 75 6 F
. 2 d 1 0 0 0 , 1 0 0 3 ( 4 th C i r . 1 9 8 5 ) ( h o l d i n gth a tc l a i ms und erthe VRR A ar e eq u i tabl e a nd a pla i nti ffi s not enti tl ed to a j ury tr i al )
. Consequentl y, U SERRA es tabl i shed additi onalr i ghts and liabi l i ti es that did notexi st u n d e rth e V R R A. M idd leton refe rs us to an un p ub li sh ed district cou rt case , deci ded befor e Jones , h o l d i n gth a tU S E R R A c l a i ms w er e n otsu bj ec t t o § 16 58
. Se eAkhdary v . Ci ty of Chatt anoog a , No. 1 : 01

- CV- 10 6, 2 00 2 W L 3 20 60 14 0 (E.D
. Te nn. M ay22 , 20 02 )
. In A khd a ry, the dist ri ct c ourtst ate d, “Se cti on 1658 appli es ‘ onl y w hen Congre ss est abl i shes a new cause o fa ct i o n wi th ou t r efer en ce t o pr ee xi st i ngl aw. ’ The8 N o. 08

- 2806

W e have not previousl y d ete rm ined w hether§ 1658’ s f our- 1 y e a r s t a t u t e o fl i mi t a t i ons a p p l i e s t o US ER RA c l a i ms . I n t wo cases inv olv ing a sim ilar issue, w e ap p lied the e q u itab le d o ct ri n e o f la ch es t o U S E R R A cla im s. S ee M a h erv . C ity o f C h i. , 5 4 7F .3d 81 7, 82 1 -2 3 (7t h C ir . 20 0 8 ); M illerv . C ity o f In d ia n a p o lis , 28 1 F .3d 6 48 , 65 3- 54 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02 )
. I n both M aher a nd M i l l er, th e c o u rt d id n o t r a ise o r m en tio n th e a p p lic a b ili ty o f § 1 6 5 8 (a ). US ER RA d o e s n o te s t ab l i s h a ne w ca us e o fa c t i o n; i ns t e a d, i t a m ends the preexi sting l aw o fthe VRR A
. ” Id. a t *6 ( ci tat i ons om i tte d) ( quotin g Zubiv. AT& T Corp. , 21 9 F.3d 220 , 225 (3d Cir. 2000)). Bu t t h a t d istri ct cou rt’s r e a s o n i n gi s i n c o mp a t ib l e w i th th e te s t t h e S u p r e me Cou r t anno unc ed i n Jo nes . As th e C o ur t m ade c l ea r, the im p ortan t con cern i s no t w he th er an am en d m en t refers to preexi sting law , b ut the am endm ent’ s s ubstanti ve effect on the ri ghts and l i abi l i ti es ofthe parti es. 541 U
. S. at 381. A fter th e C o urt de c i de d Jo nes , se ver all ower co urts , i nc l udi nga di st r i ctc o ur t i n o urc i r cui t an d one i n the sam e di str i ct a s A khd a ry, h a v e fo u n d th at U SE R R A is subj ect to the four- yea r l i m i tation s p er i od i n § 1 658. See 1 Wagne rv. Novar t i s Phar m . Corp. , 56 5 F
. S up p. 2d 94 0, 94 5 (E .D . Te n n . Ju ly 10 , 200 8) (c olle c tin g c as es ); N ino v. Ha yn es Int’ l, Inc. , N o. 1 : 0 5

- c v - 0 6 0 2 , 2 0 0 5 WL 4 8 8 9 2 5 8 , a t* 5 ( S
. D. I nd

. A ug . 19, 2005 ). U SE R R A p ro vid ed ve te ra n s t h e c h an c e t o s e ek p re viou s l y un a v a i l a b l e r e med i e s , a n a men dme nt that m at er i al l y a l te r ed th e VRRA’ s e nf o r ce m en t pr o vi si o n. The ri ghts to l i quidate d dam ages an d a j ury tr i alwere not av ai l ab l e to M i ddl et o n un derthe VRRA, a nd USERR A cre ate d new p ote nti alli abi l i ty f orthe City. In hi s o perat i veN o. 08

- 2806 9

com pla i nt, M i dd l eto n al l ege d that the City ’ s “vi ol ati on o f U SE R R A w as w il lful,” an d he sough t all“j us t and prop er” re l i ef

. S uch re lief encom passes the new r em edi es that Con g r es s pr o vi ded f o rv et er an s i n US ERRA. Appl y i ng th e S upr eme Co ur t’ s r ea so ni ngi n Jo nes , M idd leton’s c u rre n t c laim w as “m ad e p os sib le b y ” a n d “n ec es sa rily depend [ s] ” o n U SERR A , m eani ng i t a ro se und era cause of a c tio n en ac te d aft er § 16 58
. See 541 U
. S. at38 2, 38 4.

B. L egis l at i veHi s t ory an d Age n cy In t e rpre t at i on o f USERRA Pe r ha ps r ec o g ni zingthe di ffi cul tyo fhi s te xtua la r g um ent, M i dd l eto n al so turns to U SERRA ’ s l egi sl ati ve hi st o r y t o pe r su ade us tha t Cong r es s i nt en ded th atno s t a t u t e o fl i mi t a t i o n s a p p l y . B u tth e o n l y a mb i g u i t y we fi nd co ncer ni ng USE RRA i s in i ts l egi sl ati ve hi sto ry, not in the statu te’s actu al l an gu a g e . A nd w he re a statu te’s lan gu ag e is c l e ar , w e loo k t o th e le gis lat ive h ist or y on ly to deter m i ne wh etherCongr ess expre sse d a cl ear i ntenti on t o the c ontr ar y o fthe l i tera l app l i cati on o fthat lan gu ag e. Se eBowlds v. Ge n. M o tors M f g. D i v. of

theGe n. M ot ors Corp. , 4 11 F
. 3d 80 8, 8 11 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5)
. W e fi nd no contr ar y intenti on her e. M id d l e to n cit es co n gr es sio n al re p or ts to su p p or t h is ar gum en t, whi cha r e o fte n o fl i m i te d us e i n di sc erni ng congr ess i on al intent. Se e C onroy v. A nis koff , 50 7 U.S
. 51 1, 518- 19 ( 1993 ) ( Sca l i a, J
. , co ncurr i ng in the j ud gm ent)
. Even so , th e re p or ts to w h i c h M id d let on refe rs u s s p ea k s ole ly to Congress’ s intenti on that USER RA notbe subj ect to stat e st at u te s o f lim ita tio n s. See H
. R. Rep. N o. 10 3- 65( I ) , at10 N o. 08

- 2806

“ [ T h e a p p l i c a b l e p r o v i s i o n ] wo u l d r e a ffi r m . . . th a tn o S t a te 2 stat u te of lim itation shall ap p ly to an y actio n u nd er th is ch ap ter. It is also inten d ed tha t st ate s t atut es ofl im itati ons no t b e u s e d e v e n by an a l o g y . ” H
. R
. R e p . N o . 1 0 3

- 6 5 ( I ) , a t3 9 ( e mp h a se s a d d ed ). “[ The appl i c abl e pro vi s i on] woul d pro vi de .

. . th at n o S tate 3 st atute ofl im it ati ons wo uld ap ply to any proceeding und er [ U S E R R A ]. .
. . [T ]h e C o m m itt ee b el ie v es th a t . . . Sta te st atute s ofl im it ati o n s should not be used even f or guidance in dete rm ini ng w hat is u n du e delay. ” S. Rep
. N o. 103- 158, at 7 0 (em p h a se s a d d ed ). 39 ; S
. Re p. No. 1 03

- 15 8, a t 70
. Co ng r es s ex pr es se d no 2 3 d esire for U SE R R A clai m s to be im m un e from § 1658(a)’s l i m i tat i ons p er i od. Of cour se, under USER RA ’ s pre decessor, the VRR A , the express pro vi si on th at no st atest atute o fl i m i ta ti o ns s ho ul d a ppl y e ffec ti ve l y mean t th atno sta tute of lim i tat i ons appli ed

— ther e was no federa l st atut e o fl i m i ta ti o ns unt i l1 99 0. B ut U S ERRA ca m e f o ur ye ar s afte r § 1 658, and Congre ss w as w el laware that it had re c entl y e nacted a catch- al ll i m i tat i ons peri od go verni nga ny c l ai m unde ra s ubs eque nta ct
. W e se e no cl ea rc o ng r es si o na li nt en t co nt r ary t o the s ta tu to r y l an guage . M i dd l eto n al so asks us to adopt the Departm ent o f Labor ’ s inter preta ti on o fU SERRA
. Th e DOL i s char ged w i th pro m u lga ti ng r ule s foradm i ni ste ring USE RRA , 38 U
. S. C. § 4331 ( a) , and i ts posi ti on has bee n that the l aw is n ot su bj ec t to § 16 58 , seeU SERRA Pre am bl e, 70 Fe d. Reg. 75, 246, 75,287- 88 ( Dec. 19 , 20 05)
. In the pream bl e t o i ts fi na lr ul e ( c o di fi e d a t20 C. F
. R. § 1 0 0 2
. 3 1 1 ) , the DO LN o. 08

- 2806 11 note d that i t “ has l ong tak en the posi ti on that no Fed eral s t a t u t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s a p p l i e d t o a c t i o n s u n d e rUSERRA ” buttha t atl ea sto ne d istri ctc o ur t ha d r ea ch ed th e opposi te concl usi on. U SERRA Pre am bl e, 70 F ed

. Reg. at 75 , 28 7. Af te rc o ns ide r i ngc o m m en ts o n the i ss ue , the DO L stat ed that it w oul d m ai ntai n i ts or i gi nalposi ti on th at n o s ta tu te of lim ita t i o n s a p p lied to U SE R R A , bu t it note d that “ the i ssue w i l lul ti m ate l y b e r eso l ved by the c ourt s. ” Id. at 75 ,28 8. T h e D O L th en offe re d th e fo ll owing advi ce: Unti lthe i ss ue i s r es o l ve d, po te nt i alUSERRA pl aint i ff s woul d b e wel la dvi se d t o fi l e USERRA c l a i ms wi thin s e c t i o n 1 6 5 8 ’ s f o ur - y e a rp e r i o d. A ccor dingl y, the Dep ar tm ent has am ended secti on 1002
. 311 to a c k now ledge that at l east on e cou rt ha s he l d th a t2 8 U. S
. C
. 1 6 5 8 a p p l i e s t o a c t i o ns unde rUSERRA, a nd tha t i ndi vi dual s as se r ting ri ghts und erU SERRA sho uld dete rm i ne wh ether th e issue of the a p p lic abili ty of th e Fed eral fou ry e a rs t a t ut e o fl i mi t a t i o ns h a s b e e n r e s o l v e d a nd , in an y eve n t, ac t pr om p tly to p re se r v e th eir r i g h t s u n d e rUS E R R A. Id. We d i sa g r e e wi th Mi d d l e t o n ’ s a r g u me n tth a twe shoul d deferto the DO L’s i nter preta ti on. Fi rs t, w e defer to an ag en cy’ s r eas onabl e inter preta ti on o fa sta tute “o nl y wher e ‘ Con g r es s ha s no t di r ec tly a ddr es se d the preci se questi on a t i ssue’ thr ough the st atuto ryte xt. ” Nat’l A ss ’n of Hom e B uilde rs v . D ef enders of Wil dlif

e, 551 U
. S. 64 4, 665 ( 2007 ) ( quoti ng C hev ron U .S.A ., Inc . v. Na tura l R es.12 N o. 08

- 2806 D ef
. Co uncil, Inc. , 46 7 U .S
. 83 7, 84 3 ( 1984 ) )
. That Congr ess di d n o ta r t i c u l a t e a s t a t u t e o fl i mi t a t i o n s i n USERRA perha ps su g g es ts so m e a m bi g ui ty, butthe r e i s no a m bi g ui ty i n the l i m i tat i ons provi si on of§ 1658 , wh i ch appli es to an y a ct o fCongr ess enac ted afterDecem ber1, 19 90, unle ss that l aw o ther w i se provi des. Congr ess di d not “otherwis e pr ovi de” i n U SERRA
. Second, in e xplaini ng i ts posi ti on in the pream bl e, the DO L rel i ed heav ily on pre Jo nes case law and the inco nc lusive legi slative history w e h av e jus t d isc u ss ed

. See US E R R A P r e a mb l e , 7 0 F e d. Re g . a t 75 , 28 7- 88
. Thi r d, a l th o ugh the pr ea m bl e to 20 C. F
. R. § 1 002. 311 sta tes t hat the DOL bel i eve s no st atute o f l i m i tat i ons appli es to U SERRA , the rul e i tse l fi s m uch l ess cer tain: “USER RA does nothave a statute ofl i m i tati o ns , a nd i t ex pr es sly pr ec l ude s th e appl i ca ti o n o fa ny S ta te s ta tu te o f li m ita ti o ns . ” 20 C. F
. R. § 1 00 2. 31 1. The DOL i s co r r ec t th atUSERRA “ do es notha ve ” a l i m i ta ti o ns peri od

— Congre ss did noti nclu d e a n expres s s tatute ofl i m i tat i ons w i thi n the sta tute. The DO L’s rul e then hedges. I t e xplains thatatl eas t o ne co urt has a pp l i ed § 1 658’ s four- yea r st atute ofl i m i tat i ons, thatl aches m aya lso appl y, tha t an y i ndi vi dualwi tha USERRA cl ai m sho uld dete rm i ne wh etherthi s i ssue has be en re so lve d by th e c ou rt s, an d t h at th e in d ivid u al s h ou ld a c t p ro m p tly

. Id. The DOL’ s unc er ta i nty o n thi s i ss ue furth er pe rsu ad es us to w ith h o ld an y d eferenc e its int erpreta ti on m i ght o ther w i se be due. Acc o r d i n g l y, US E R R A’ s l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y a n d the DO L’s i nter pret at ion of the l aw do notco nvi nce us that Co n gr ess i ntended to i m m unize U SERRA cl ai m s fro m § 1 658.N o. 08

- 2806 13 C. S e c t i on 1 65 8 App l i e s t o USERRA W e re cogni ze Congre ss’ s desi re to prot ect the e m plo ym ent and r eem plo ym ent ri ghts of our m an y vete ra ns. Ou r countr y’ s popul ati on o w es a g re at d eb t to the m en and w om en wh o have ser ved to pro tect u s. W e a l so a c k no wl e dg e tha tUS ER RA i s t o b e l ib e r a l l y c o ns t r ue d. D a vis v
. A dv o ca te Heal th C tr. Pa tient C a re E xp ress , 52 3 F
. 3d 681, 683- 84 ( 7th Cir
. 2008 )
. Bu t w e ar e charg ed w ith i nt er pr et i ngthe l aws tha t Con g r es s en ac ts b as ed o n the lan gu ag e t h at itu se s. C on gr es s e n ac te d U SE R R A w ell afteri t cr eat ed the f our- yea r l i m i tat i ons p er iod i n § 1 658, and w e pr esum e that C on gr ess knew that any ne w federa lst atute would be subj ect to su c h a l i m i tat i on u nl ess i t “otherwis e provi ded by l aw . ” Thu s, if C on gr es s w an te d a d i ffer en t lim ita tio n s p er iod to ap p ly to USERRA

— or n o n e a t a ll

— i t ne ede d t o s ays o . And th is is p r e c i se ly w h at C on gr es s d id in 2 00 8, w h en it pas se d the Ve te r an s’ B en efi ts I m pr o ve m en t Act, b r i ng i ng us to o u r next quest i on

— w hetherthe VB I A appli ed to Mi d d l e t o n ’ s c l a i m.

II
. The Retroactive A pplicati on of theVB IA M i dd l eto n’s next ar gum ent i s that e ven i f§ 1658 ap p li ed to his U SE R R A clai m w he n h e fi led it, Con gress’s r ec en t en ac tmento fthe VBI A sa ve s hi s l aws ui t. The d ist rict co urt gr anted the Ci ty’ s m oti on t o dism i ss on J une 23, 20 08; M i dd l et on fi l ed hi s no ti ce o fappealo n J u ly 18; and the VB I A bec am e e ffecti ve on Octo ber10
. M id d let on n ow cla i m s t h at C on gr es s e n ac te d th e V B IA to cl ar i fy that U SERRA was neversubj ect to any s tatute14 N o. 08

- 2806 ofl i m i tat i ons, and, consequentl y, the new pro vi si on shoul d rev i ve hi s cl ai m . W e di sag re e.

A. TheVBIA’s St at ut ory L angu age W e tu r n fi r stto the l an g ua g e o fthe di spu te d l eg i sl at i o n. The VB I A st ru ck the pr ovi si on in U SERRA that prohibi ted applying sta te sta tutes of l i m i tat i on , fo rm er l y, as am ended, at 38 U
. S. C. § 43 23 ( i ) , and re pla ced i t with the fol l owing: If an y p er so n s e e ks to file a c om p lain t o r c laim wi th th e S e c r e t a r y [ o fLa b o r ] , th e Me r i tS y s t e ms Prote ction B oard , or a Fed eral or State cou rt u n d er th is c h ap te r alle gin g a vio lat ion of th is chapter, ther e s hal lbe no lim i t o n the peri od f or fi l i n gth e c o mp l a i n to rc l a i m. Pub. L. N o. 11 0- 389, § 311(f ) ( 1) , 12 2 S tat
. 41 45, 41 64 ( 2008 ) (cod ified at 38 U

. S. C
. § 4327(b)). As we det ai l ed ab o ve , ou r fi r sts to p i n int er pr et i ng leg isla tio n is th e lan gu ag e th at C on gr es s e m p loy ed , Engi ne M frs. Ass’ n , 54 1 U.S
. at25 2, and i t i s wel lestabl i shed that a c ou rtsho uld notapplya new l y e nacted s tatutor y pr ovi si on r etr oac ti vel y unl ess C ongr ess has cl ear l y m andated su c h an ex te n sio n, see H u g h e s A ircra ft C o . v. U nited Sta tes ex rel. Sc hu m er, 520 U .S. 93 9, 94 6-4 7 (1 99 7); Kil l i ngs worth v
. HSBC Ba n k Nev
. , N. A. , 507 F.3d 614 , 619-20 (7th C ir. 20 07 ) (d isc u ss in g th e Su p re m e C ou rt ’s d ec isi on in La ndgr a f v. U SI F ilm P rod s. , 5 11 U. S
. 2 44 ( 19 94 ) , a nd the gen eral presu m p tion of “an tiretroactivity” in case s w he re a st at u te ’s te m p or al re ac h is am b igu ou s); Bow l ds , 411 F. 3dN o. 08

- 2806 15 at 81 1; D ia z v. Sh a llbetter, 9 8 4 F
. 2 d 8 5 0 , 8 5 2 ( 7 th Cir
. 19 93) ( “There i s [ a] ve nerabl e pr i nci ple thatchange s in sta tutes do not apply to pend i ng ca ses unl ess the l egi sl atur e s o com m an d s, ex p li citly. ”). The VB I A sa ys nothi ng about whether § 4 327(b) appli es re tr oac ti vel y. In f act, the onl y hint i n the t ext s ugges ts that i t a pp l ies prospe cti vely : “ I fa ny pe r so n seeks to file a c o mp lain t o r c laim

. . . .” Se c . 311 (f)(1 ), § 43 27 (b ) (em p h as is adde d)

. Co ng r e s s wa s a wa r e tha t f o r § 4 3 2 7 ( b ) t o have r et r o ac ti ve effec t, i t ne ede d to sa y so ex pr es sly, and the ab se nc e o f an y su ch ex pr es s l an g ua g e i n th e text i nd i cate s that Congr ess chos e no t t o do so

. M or e im p or ta n tly , h ow ev er , is th at ev en if w e c ou ld i nter pret § 4 327(b) to ap p l y t o som e USER RA cl ai m s fi l ed before O ctob er 10, 2008 , this w ou ld n ot save M idd leton’s thi rt een- yea r- ol d cause of acti on, wh i ch w as al re ady ti m ebarred w he n § 432 7(b ) t o ok effect. A plaintiffm ay overco m e th e g en er al pr es um pti o n a g ains t r et r o ac ti vi ty, b ut doin g so i s “ especi al l y t ough” w hen the am ended la w extends the ti m e withi n w hi ch a pla in tiff m ust fi l e a law su it. D i az , 98 4 F
. 2d at 852. W e typi cal l y pr esum e that a n ew l y e xtended statute o f lim ita tio n s d oe s n otrev ive a p re v i o u s l y b ar re d cla im
. See Vil l
. o f B ell wood v. D wive di, 895 F.2d 152 1, 1527( 7th Cir. 1 9 9 0 ) ( “ I n the ab s e nc e o fe v i de nc e o fa c o nt r a r y l egi sl ati ve pu rpos e, sub sequ ent e xtensi ons ofa sta tutory l i m i tatio n p er iod w ill no t re v i v e a cla im p re vio u sly ba rre d .” (q u ot at ion s o m itt ed )); cf
. H ugh e s Ai r craf

tCo. , 5 2 0 U
. S. at 95 0 ( no t i n gth a tth e e x t e n s i o no fa s t a t u t e o fl i mi t a t i o ns afterthe preexi sting per i od o f li m i tat i ons has e xpir ed “im p erm issibly revives a m oribun d cau se of action”).16 N o. 08

- 2806 “L aw s e n lar gin g th e s ta tu te of lim i t a t i on s t ra d itio n ally ar e appl i ed pr o spe ct i ve l y ; s o m et i m es c o ur ts e ven hint that l egi sl atur es l ack the power to re vi ve cl ai m s that ha v e b e c o me b a r r e d b y l a ps e o ft i m e. ” D i az , 98 4 F
. 2d at 852- 53 (cit in g Brad l ey v . Sch. Bd. of Ri ch m ond, 41 6 U.S
. 69 6, 72 0 (1 97 4)); s e eals o B e r m an v. B l oun tP ar r i s h & Co. , 52 5 F
. 3d 10 57, 1 05 8- 59 ( 11 thCi r . 2 00 8) ( r efus i ngt o a ppl y a n e xte nde d l i m i ta ti ons pe r i o d f o rc er ta i n s ec ur i ti es fr au d c as es , add ed by § 8 04( a) o fthe Sarbanes- Ox l ey A ct o f 20 02 , t o c l ai m s pr ev i o us l y t i m e-ba r r ed, a nd c o l l ec ting ca se s, i nc l udi ngo uro wn i n Fos s v. Be ar, Stearn s & Co. , 394 F.3d 540, 542 (7th Cir. 2005)). M i dd l eto n as ks u s to apply § 4 327(b) to r evi ve a t i m eb a r r e d c l a i m, b u th e h a s p r e s e n t e d n o th i n gt o o v e r c o me ou r p re su m p tio n ag ain std oin g s o. C on g r es s s aid n ot h in g a b ou t re tr oa c tiv ity , an d u n d er th e g e n er al ru le w e h av e jus t s ta te d , w e c a n n otap p ly § 43 27 (b ) to h is thi rt een- yea r- ol d U SERRA cl ai m . B ecause M i dd l eto n all eged cond uc t oc c u rri ng m ore tha n four years before Congre ss enacte d the VBI A , we need not de ci de w hether § 4 327(b) appli es re tr oac tive ly to a cl ai m thatacc rued withi n th e f o u ry e a r s p r e c e d i n gth e V B I A.

B. W he t he rtheVBIA Cl ar i

f i e d orAl t e re d Exi s t i ng Law T o a vo id th is re su lt, M id d let on arg u es th at th e V B IA m erely cl ar i fi ed, r atherthan al ter ed, exi sting l aw . S uch l egi sl ati on i s no t typi cal l y s ubj ect to a presum pti on ag ains t r et r o ac ti vi tya nd i s appl i ed to a l lc as es pe ndi ng on th e d at e o f en ac tm en t. Se e, e . g. , AB KC O M us i c, Inc . v.N o. 08

- 2806 17 La V ere, 21 7 F
. 3d 684, 68 9 ( 9th Ci r. 2000) (“N or m al l y, wh en ana m en dm en t i s dee m ed cl ar i fy i ngr athe rtha n s ubst an tive, i t is ap p li ed retroa ctively. ” (qu otations om itted )) ; Pi amb a Cor t e s v . Am. Ai r l i n e s , In c. , 1 77 F. 3d 1272 , 12 83 ( 11th Cir
. 19 99) ( “[ C]once rns about re tr oac ti ve app licati on a re noti m pli cate d w hen an a m endm ent
. . . i s deem ed to cl ar i fy r el evantl aw r ather th an effect a s ubstanti ve ch an ge in the law

. ”); cf
. Cla y v . Johns on , 26 4 F
. 3d 744, 74 9 ( 7th Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( no t i ng tha t a n a g e nc y r ul e c l a r i fy i ngan u n se tt led are a o f law m ay b e a p p lied to ca se ath an d ). A numbero ff ac to r s m ayi ndi ca te whethe ra n a m end m ent i s clar i fy i ngr athe rtha n s ubs ta nt i ve : whethe rthe enacting bo dy decl ar ed that i t was cl ar ifyin g a pri or enactm ent; wh ethera confl i ct o r am bi gu i ty exi ste d pri or to the a m en dm en t; a nd whe th erthe a m en dm en t i s co nsi st en t wi tha r ea so nabl e i nt er pr et at i o n o fthe pri o re na c t me n ta n d i t s leg isla tiv e h ist or y. P ia m ba C o rtes , 17 7 F .3 d at12 83 -84 ; s e e a l s o L i q u i l u x Ga s Co rp . v . M a r t i n Gas Sa les , 979 F.2d 887, 890 (1st C ir. 1992). W e di sag re e w ith M i dd l eto n that the VBI A was cl ar i fyi ng l egi sl ati on . A s w e e xplained i n the fi rs t por ti on o f o ur o pi ni o n, § 16 58 appl i ed to USERRA, and the te xt o fthe t w o st atut es was no t ambi g uo us , l ea vingno th i ng f o rCo ng r es s to “ cl ar i fy . ” N o r is t he VBI A’s a m en dm en t a r eas onabl e inter preta ti on o fU SE RRA , wh i ch w as si l ent o n w hether§ 1658 s h ou l d app l y, o r i ts l egi sl ati ve hi sto ry, wh i ch co ntai ned nothi ng to c ontr adic t the cl ear l an g ua g e o f§ 1 65 8. Ra th ertha n “c l ar i fy i ng ” th atno st atut e o fl i m i ta ti o ns a ppl i ed to USERRA, the 2 00 8 Con

gr ess subst anti vel y c hanged the l aw so that§ 1658 w oul d not a pp l y.18 N o. 08

- 2806 W e fin d th e t ex t o f § 43 2 7 ( b ) t o be u n am b igu ou s. It d o e s n o tme n t i o n c l a r i fi c a t i o n o rr e t r o a c t i v i t y, a n d we ne ed no t tu r n t o the leg i sl at i ve hi st o r y o fthe pr o vi si o n. E ven i f, how ever, w e pe eked at tha t his t o r y to de term i ne wh eth era l i ter ali nter preta ti on o fthe l anguage w ou ld co n t r a v e n e C on gr es s’s int en t, s e eBowlds , 41 1 F
. 3d at 81 1, w e fin d n ot h i n g t o c on vin c e u s t h at th e V B IA appli es to M i dd l eto n’s cl aim . F i rs t, r el i ance o n a l egi sl atu r e’ s o bs er va ti o ns r eg ar di nga pr i o rl eg i sl atur e’ s i nt en t is of m ar gi n a l ut ility atbe st
. SeeCo nsum erProd. Safe ty C om m ’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. , 44 7 U.S
. 10 2, 11 7 ( 1980 ) (noting “th e oft-r e p e ated w arn ing tha t the view s of a subsequent Congre ss f or m a hazar dous bas i s for i nfe r r i ngthe i nt e nto fa n e a r l i e ro ne . ” ( qu o t a t i o ns o m i tte d )) ; s e eal s o At ch i s on, Tope ka & Sant a F eRy. Co. v. B lanchet te, 6 2 8 F
. 2 d 1 0 1 1 , 1 0 1 4 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 8 0 ) ( “ [ T ] h e v i e ws ofa l ate r Congress c an not be a ccor ded the w ei ght o f conte m pora rylegi sl ati ve hi sto ryi n a c onsi derat i on o f th e inten t of an earli er one.” ( qu otations om itted ))
. Se cond, the onl y ind i cati on that perhaps Congre ss i ntended t o cl ar i fy U SERRA or that the VBI A sho uld have re tr oac ti ve effect cam e in a S enate r epor t: Su b se c tio n 3 0 2 ( f) of th e C om m itt ee bill w ou ld cl ar i fy that the o ri gi na l inte nt o fCongr ess was that U SER R A would not be s ubj ect to a federa lo r st at e s ta tu te of lim ita tio n s p er iod an d sp e c ifica lly sta tes thatther e i s no ti m e l i m i t fora perso n to fi l e a co m pla i nt .
. . . The appli cati on o fa federa l st at u te of lim ita tio n p er i od u n d er U SE R R A is in c on sis te n t w ith th e in te n t o f C on gr es s . . . .N o. 08

- 2806 19 S. Rep. 11 0- 449, at26 ( 2008 ), as repr i nt e d i n 2008 U. S
. C. C. A. N
. 1722 , 1748

- 49
. Altho ugh Con g r es s used the w or d “cl ar i fy, ” i ts act m u st al so com portwith o ther att ributes of“cl ar i fyi ng” l egi slat ion to avo i d bei ng a su b s t an tiv e c h an ge in t h e la w . W e a re h es ita n t in th is case to aff or d t h at singl e word m or e wei ght than i t deser ves. The VBIA’s l egi sl ati ve hi storysa ys nothi ng r egar ding re troact i vi ty. That the 20 08 Congre ss bel i eve d USERRA to b e unc o ns tr aine d b y a statut e o fl i m i ta ti o ns fro m bi rth i s cl ear, bu t the 20 08 Congre ss did notst ate that i ts am endm ent s houl d app l y t o al lcl ai m s. Furtherm or e, Congr ess di d not e xpress any intent to cl ar i fy USER RA i n the stat ute i tse lf. W e proce ed w i th cauti on wh en Congr ess decl ar es i ts i ntent to c lari fy a l aw i n the l egi sl ati ve hi sto ryr atherthan the a m endm ent’ s t ext. See P ia m ba C o rtes , 17 7 F
. 3d at 1284 ( “A s a g ener alr ule , ‘ [ a] m er e s tat em ent in a c onfer ence re porto f[ subsequent] l egi sl ati on a s t o w hat the Com m i tte e be l i eves a n ea rl i er st atut e m ea nti s o bv i o us l y less wei g hty ’ tha n a s ta te m en t i n the a m en dm en t i ts el f

. ” ( al te r at i o ns i n o r i g i na l ) ( quo ting C onsum erProd. Safe ty Com m ’n , 447U .S. at 1 18 n .13 )). In Brown v. Thom ps on , th e F ou rt h C irc u it h eld th at ce rt ain am en d m en ts w er e c lar ifyin g, n ot in g th at “[m ]os t s ign ificant t o our deter m i nati on here, C ongr ess f or m al l y decl ar e d i n th e t i t l e s o fth e r e l e v a n ts u b s e c t i o n s o f[ the am ending act] t h at t he am endm ents of[ the o ri gi nalact ] w er e ‘ cl ar i fyi ng’ and ‘ techni cal, ’ ” a n d that Congr ess “expres sl y pr ovi ded i n [ the a m en d ing a ct] thatthes e techni caland cl ar i fyi ng am endm ents be m ade effecti ve ‘as if in c lu d ed in t h e e n a c tm en t’ o f th e [o rig in al a c t].” 374 F
. 3 d 2 5 3 , 2 5 9 ( 4 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 )
. T h e V B I A c o n t a i n s no such l anguage .20 N o. 08

- 2806 I nde ed, a s th e Ci typo i nt s o ut, Co ngr es s ha s co nsidere d si m i l aram endm ents that w oul d have e xpres sly p ro vid ed for re tr oa c tiv e ap p lica tio n oft h e V B IA
. Se e, e . g. , S. 34 32, 11 0th Cong. § 7 ( as i ntrod u c ed by Se ns. Casey, K ennedy, and Obam a, A ug. 1, 20 08) ( speci fi cal l y en titl ed “Cla ri fi cati on that USER RA H as N o St atute o fL im i tati ons, ” a nd st ating tha t the am endm ent s hal la p ply“t o alla ct i o ns o rc o m pl aint s fi l ed unde r[ USERRA] tha t ar e p en d in g on or a fte r th e d at e o f th e e n ac tm en t o f t h is A c t”). Congr ess knew how to m ake the VB I A r etr oac ti ve, and i t cho se not to do so

. W i thout gui dance from Congr ess r ega rdi ng the effect of the V B I A on p en d ing claim s, th ere is not hin g to overco m e bo ththe na tu r almean i ngo f§ 4 32 7(b) ’ s te xta nd our gener al presum pti on that an am endm ent to a sta tu te of lim ita tio n s s h ou ld n otap p ly re tr o a c tiv ely . Th e V B IA d o e s n o ta p p l y t o Mi d d l e t o n ’ s c l a i m.

I V. Conc l us i on Congre ss enacte d U SERRA near ly four yea rs after enacting § 1658 , and i t di d not incl ud e in U SERRA a sta tute ofl i m i tat i ons ora provi si on that no l i m i tat i ons peri od shoul d app l y. A ccor dingl y, U SERRA i s s ubj ect to § 1658
. Congre ss, r eco gni zi ng t hat USER RA di d not di scuss the federa lst atute o fl i m i tat ions, passe d the VBI A to provi de expres sl y that no st atute o fli m i tat i ons shal lapply

. The l eg i sl atur e, ho wev er, s to pped sh o r t o fb estowi ng re tr oac ti ve effect up on the new l aw , and w e d ecl i ne to extend i t without a cl eardi re cti ve. The re fore, we A FFIRMN o. 08

- 2806 21 the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deci si on g ra nt i ng the Ci ty’ s m oti on to dism i ss.

8- 24- 09