Case Name: L.A. DAVIS; Sarah Davis, husband and wife, d/b/a D & D Equipment, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SECRETARY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-04
Citations: 601 F. App'x 753
Docket Number: No. 14-2142
Parties: L.A. DAVIS; Sarah Davis, husband and wife, d/b/a D & D Equipment, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SECRETARY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before GORSUCH, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 601
Pages: 753–753

Head Matter:
L.A. DAVIS; Sarah Davis, husband and wife, d/b/a D & D Equipment, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SECRETARY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-2142.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
May 4, 2015.
Michael T. Garrett, Garrett Law Firm, Clovis, NM, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Laura Fashing, Roberto D. Ortega, Office of the United States Attorney, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before GORSUCH, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
ROBERT E. BACHARACH, Circuit Judge.
The district court dismissed this action under the Federal Tort Claims Act, holding in part that the FTCA's time limits are jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling. During the pendency of this appeal, the Supreme Court has held in United States v. Wong, Nos. 13-1074, 13-1075, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1625, — L.Ed.2d -, 2015 WL 1808750 (U.S. Apr. 22, 2015), that the FTCA's time limits are nonjurisdictional and subject to equitable tolling. In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wong, the parties agree that this case should be remanded to the district court for further proceedings. We agree. The action is remanded to the district court for further proceedings in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wong.
The Court has determined that oral argument would not materially aid our consideration of the appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). Thus, we have decided the appeal based on the briefs. Our order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estop-pel.