Russell L. Swarthout v. Michigan Bell Telephone Company
Russell L. SWARTHOUT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
The district court granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the statute of limitations bars appellant’s claim that between January, 1963, and April, 1968, appellee intercepted, divulged or published certain of appellant’s telephonic communications in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605 (1970). Even assuming, without deciding, that appellant properly pleaded the Michigan fraudulent concealment statute, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.5855 (1968), and that appellant had no reason to discover his claim prior to December, 1968, we affirm.
The Federal Communications Act provides for a one-year statute of limitations on claims, other than those for overcharges, against carriers. 47 U.S.C. § 415 (b) (1970). See Chaps v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., No. 20,476 (6th Cir. filed Jan. 8, 1971); see also Ward v. Northern Ohio Tel. Co., 381 F.2d 16 (6th Cir. 1967), aff’g 251 F.Supp. 606 (N.D.Ohio 1966). Assuming that appellee fradulently concealed appellant’s claim until December, 1968, and assuming that such fraudulent concealment tolled the one-year statute of limitations (compare Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Disspain, 275 F.2d 25 (6th Cir. 1960) with United States v. Borin, 209 F.2d 145 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 821 , 75 S.Ct. 33 , 99 L.Ed. 647 (1954)), the period of the statute still would have expired in December, 1969, more than three months prior to appellant’s filing of his claim.
We reject appellant’s attempted use of the Michigan fraudulent concealment statute to avoid appellee’s statute of limitations defense. Using such a state statute would defeat the national uniformity Congress intended in enacting the one-year statute of limitations. See Burnett v. New York Central R.R., 380 U.S. 424 , 85 S.Ct. 1050 , 13 L.Ed.2d 941 (1965), rev’g 332 F.2d 529 (6th Cir. 1964); Prather v. Neva Paperbacks, Inc., 446 F.2d 338 (5th Cir. 1971); Hale v. Ralston Purina Co., 432 F.2d 156, 158 (8th Cir. 1970).
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Maurizio v. Goldsmith
- Sharon Margaret Pavlak v. John R. Church, Individually and in His Capacity as Chief of Police for the City of Boise
- Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Rucker
- Nordlicht v. New York Telephone Co.
- MFS International, Inc. v. International Telcom Ltd.
- US West, Inc. v. Business Discount Plan, Inc.
Most recent
- US West, Inc. v. Business Discount Plan, Inc.
- Maurizio v. Goldsmith
- MFS International, Inc. v. International Telcom Ltd.
- Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Lott
- Nordlicht v. New York Telephone Co.
- Sharon Margaret Pavlak v. John R. Church, Individually and in His Capacity as Chief of Police for the City of Boise
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.