Milton A. Schultz, Plaintiff-appellant, v. the United States, Defendant-appellee, 868 F.2d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 1989)Annotate this Case
Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and EDWARD S. SMITH and ARCHER, Circuit Judges.
The order of the United States Claims Court, No. 377-88C, dismissing Milton A. Schultz's (Schultz) complaint for lack of jurisdiction, is affirmed.
We agree with the Claims Court that Schultz's claim was not brought within the six-year statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2501 (1982). That limitation "is a jurisdictional requirement attached by Congress as a condition of the government's waiver of soverign immunity and, as such, must be strictly construed." Hopland Band of Pomo Indians v. United States, 855 F.2d 1573, 1576-77 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see Soriano v. United States, 352 U.S. 270, 276 (1957). Schultz failed to allege a set of facts even remotely supporting a tolling of the statute. See, e.g., Hopland Band, 855 F.2d at 1577-79 (drawing distinction between tolling of accrual and tolling the statute); Japanese War Notes Claimants Ass'n of the Phillipines, Inc. v. United States, 373 F.2d 356, 358 (Ct. Cl.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 971 (1967) (applying statute of limitations and tolling principles).