Opinion ID: 2718900
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The panel’s opinion

Text: In our original opinion, after determining the plain meaning of the Extender Statute as establishing a universal time limit for all NCUA lawsuits, we employed tools of statutory construction—surrounding text, statutory context, and statutory purpose—to confirm that meaning. In doing so, we “assume[d] for the sake of discussion” the plausibility of Appellants’ contention that the breadth of the term “statute of limitations” in the Extender Statute may affect the scope of its universal time frame. NCUA, 727 F.3d at 1258. We then “examine[d] the term ‘statute of limitations’ more closely.” Id. After acknowledging that “standing alone, the words ‘statute of limitations’ may be ambiguous” and may or may not include statutes of repose, we determined the Extender Statute’s surrounding language, statutory context, and statutory purpose compel a “broad” interpretation of the term that includes statutes of repose. Id. at 1258-60.8 We therefore concluded that even under Appellants’ aforementioned plausible contention, the Extender Statute’s universal time frame displaces statutes of repose. CTS does not change that analysis. 8 Conversely, by “narrow,” we mean an interpretation of “statute of limitations” that does not include “statutes of repose.” - 15 -