Air Control Tech. v. Pre Con Indus., No. 11-56230 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseACT brought this suit against PCI and First National, alleging claims of breach of contract, quantum meruit, and recovery on a payment bond under the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. 3131(b). Because United States ex rel. Celanese Coatings Co. v. Gullard was clearly irreconcilable with intervening higher authority, the court overruled it and held that the Miller Act's statute of limitations was a claim-processing rule, not a jurisdictional rule. Because nothing on the face of ACT's complaint indicated that it did not work on the project or rent equipment to PCI within one year of the date it filed the complaint, the complaint could not have been dismissed if the district court had treated the Miller Act's statute of limitations as a claim-processing rule. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded.
Court Description: Miller Act. The panel vacated the district court’s order dismissing as time-barred a subcontractor’s complaint alleging federal question jurisdiction over a claim under the Miller Act, which requires that a general contractor on a federal construction project furnish a payment bond for the protection of all persons supplying labor and material on the project. Overruling United States ex rel. Celanese Coatings Co. v. Gullard, 504 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1974), as clearly irreconcilable with intervening higher authority, the panel held that the Miller Act’s statute of limitations is a claim- processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement. The panel held that because nothing on the face of the complaint indicates the subcontractor did not work on the project or rent equipment to the general contractor within one year of the date the complaint was filed, the complaint could not have been dismissed if the district court had treated the Miller Act’s statute of limitations as a claim-processing rule. The panel remanded for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.