United States Ninth Circuit

ResetAA Font size: Print

PNC v. Sturba, 14-60061

In a creditor's claim based on a promissory note on real property in California, that would be barred by a four-year California statute of limitations but not by a six-year Ohio statute of limitations, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's reversal of the bankruptcy court's ruling that a creditor's claim was timely is reversed where: 1) under federal common law, the contractual choice-of-law provision did not expressly include the statute of limitations and therefore was silent on the issue; 2) under section 142 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, the statute of limitations of the forum state, California, would generally apply; and 3) exceptional circumstances, however, directed the application of the Ohio statute of limitations because the unique strictures of the Bankruptcy Code meant that, through no fault of the creditor, the only forum for its claim was the Northern District of California.

Appellate Information

  • Argued
  • Submitted
  • Decided
  • Published 2017/04/05




  • United States Ninth Circuit


FindLaw Career Center

      Post a Job  |  View More Jobs

    View More