Court Opinion

ID: 9639266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:10:02.276386+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:14.872513
License: Public Domain

SANBORN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
In my opinion, there is no adequate basis for ruling that the Iowa statute of limitations in suit is unconstitutional. In enacting the Fair Labor Standards Act, Congress saw fit to omit a provision limiting the time within which rights created by the Act might be asserted. Congress could, no doubt, have required that claims based upon the statute should be barred after six months from the time of their accrual. Since the Act fails to prescribe any period of limitations, each state, I think, is at liberty to fix the time within which actions to enforce rights granted by the Act shall be commenced.
This is clearly an action to enforce a right created by a federal statute which prescribes no period of limitation, and the action, therefore, comes within the purview of the Iowa statute of limitations in suit. Compare, Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 321 U.S. 342, 348, 64 S.Ct. 582, 88 L.Ed. 788, and Moore v. Illinois Central R. Co., 312 U.S. 630, 61 S.Ct. 754, 85 L.Ed. 1089.
A statute of limitations does not take away any right of action, but merely limits the time within which the right may be asserted. Turner v. People of State of New York, 168 U.S. 90, 94, 18 S.Ct. 38, 42 L.Ed. 392; Mattson v. Department of Labor, 293 U.S. 151, 155, 55 S.Ct. 14, 79 L.Ed. 251. In other words, such a statute does not impair any substantive right, but affects only the time within which the remedy to enforce it shall be available. “A man cannot be said to be denied, in a constitutional or in any rational sense, the privilege of resorting to courts to enforce his rights when he is given free access to them for a length of time reasonably sufficient to enable an ordinarily diligent man to institute proceedings for their protection.” Canadian Northern R. Co. v. Eggen, 252 U.S. 553, 562, 40 S.Ct. 402, 404, 64 L.Ed. 713. See and compare, Terry v. Anderson, 95 U.S. 628, 633, 24 L.Ed. 365; Chemung Canal Bank v. Lowery, 93 U.S. 72, 77, 23 L.Ed. 806; Mills v. Scott, 99 U.S. 25, 27, 25 L.Ed. 294; Vance v. Vance, 108 U.S. 514, 520, 521, 2 S.Ct. 854, 27 L.Ed. 808; Turner v. People of State of New York, supra, page 94 of 168 U.S., page 40 of 18 S.Ct., 42 L.Ed. 392; Wilson v. Iseminger, 185 U.S. 55, 62, 63, 22 S.Ct. 573, 46 L.Ed. 804; United States v. Morena, 245 U.S. 392, 397, 38 S.Ct. 151, 62 L.Ed. 359; Atchafalaya Land Co. v. F. B. Williams Cypress Co., 258 U.S. 190, 196, 197, 42 S.Ct. 284, 66 L.Ed. 559; 34 Am.Jur., pages 27-33.
The plaintiff had no vested interest in a particular limitation, and the Legislature of Iowa could prescribe a limitation where none existed before or could change one already established, “provided adequate means of enforcing the right remain.” Terry v. Anderson, supra, page 633 of 95 U.S., 24 L.Ed. 365.
I have found no case involving the question of the validity of a statute of limitations, in which the Supreme Court of the United States has concerned itself with the propriety or fairness of the basis adopted by a state Legislature for classifying causes of action. Statutes of limitation are, in their nature, necessarily somewhat arbitrary and discriminatory. There seems *548to be no provision in the Federal Constitution which prohibits a State from providing a special period of limitation for a cause of action of a certain kind or for a designated class of actions, so long as the time allowed is sufficient to permit enforcement of substantive rights. I think that the time allowed by the statute of limitations in suit cannot, as a matter of law, be said to be so short as to invalidate the statute. Compare, Turner v. People of State of New York, supra, page 94 of 168 U.S., page 40 of 18 S.Ct., 42 L.Ed. 392, and Mills v. Scott, supra, page 27 of 99 U.S., 25 L.Ed. 294.
In Eggen v. Canadian Northern R. Co., 8 Cir., 255 F. 937, this Court, with one judge dissenting, held that a statute of limitations of the State of Minnesota was discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. In doing so, it relied upon general language found in cases which did not involve the precise questions. Judge Hook, who dissented, referred to this in his dissenting opinion in that case (page 940 of 255 F.). The Supreme Court reversed this Court, in 252 U.S. 553, 40 S.Ct. 402, 64 L.Ed. 713. While the Eggen case did not raise the same question of discrimination which is presented here, that case discloses the hazards involved in ruling that state statutes of limitation are unconstitutional on the ground that they are discriminatory.
Since I can find no sufficient justification for ruling that the Iowa statute of limitations in suit is violative of the Constitution of the United States, I respectfully dissent from so much of the majority opinion as holds to the contrary.