Court Opinion

ID: 9842999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:23:50.572633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:24.325348
License: Public Domain

HANSON, Senior District Judge,
dissenting.
Although the majority opinion arrives at an eminently sensible analysis of the application of section 10(b)’s service require*119ment, I do not believe that DelCostello leaves us room to so speculate. It is apparent to me that the Supreme Court recognized the unambiguous requirement in section 10(b) that filing and service be accomplished within six months of the accrual of the action by its specific reference to this language in the statute. DelCostello v. Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151,154 n. 2,103 S.Ct. 2281, 2285 n. 2, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983). To construe otherwise places this Court in the untenable position of legislating what is the appropriate policy in this area.
I must therefore respectfully dissent in this case and in Ramon Elisalde v. International Association of Machinists, et al., 792 F.2d 114 (8th Cir.1986).