Keller v. United States of America
Filing
21
ORDER granting 15 the United States' Motion to Dismiss and this action is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 7/18/12.(TLJ)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
10
Mary Jo Keller, et al.
Plaintiffs,
11
12
13
vs.
The United States of America,
Defendant.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-11-02345-PHX-PGR
ORDER
15
16
Pending before the Court is defendant United States’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
17
15), filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).
Having reviewed the parties’
18
memoranda, the Court finds that this action should be dismissed for lack of subject
19
matter jurisdiction.1
20
Background
21
This Federal Tort Claims Act case, commenced on August 26, 2011, arises
22
from an automobile accident on September 7, 2007 in which Amanda Keller was
23
killed when her vehicle crossed the median of Interstate 10 through an allegedly
24
defective median cable barrier and collided with an oncoming vehicle. The plaintiffs,
25
26
1
Although the plaintiffs have requested a hearing on the pending motion,
the Court concludes that oral argument would not aid the decisional process.
1
Mary Jo Keller, Amanda’s surviving mother for purposes of Arizona’s Wrongful
2
Death Act, A.R.S. § 12-611, and the Estate of Amanda Keller, through Mary Jo
3
Keller as Amanda’s personal representative for purposes of a survival action under
4
A.R.S. § 12-3110 (collectively “Keller”), filed a First Amended Complaint on October
5
11, 2011; the amended complaint raises a claim for negligence, which alleges that
6
the United States negligently failed to comply with its own policies and federal law
7
mandating that safety barriers installed on National Highway System roadways
8
undergo crash testing and approval pursuant to the National Cooperative Highway
9
Research Project Report 350, and a claim for negligence per se, which alleges that
10
the United States violated its own federally mandated safety rules and regulations.
11
Discussion
12
The United States has moved in part to dismiss this action in its entirety for
13
lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that both claims raised in the First
14
Amended Complaint are time-barred because Keller did not present the
15
administrative claims required by the FTCA to the Federal Highway Administration
16
until December 16, 2010, which the United States contends was more than two
17
years after Keller’s tort claims accrued.2 The FTCA’s statute of limitations provides
18
that
19
20
21
[a] tort claim against the United States shall be forever barred unless
it is presented in writing to the appropriate Federal agency within two
years after such claim accrues or unless action is begun within six
months after the date of mailing, by certified or registered mail, of notice
of final denial of the claim by the agency to which it was presented.
22
23
24
25
26
2
The Court notes that it is reaching only those arguments raised by the
parties that it considers necessary to the resolution of the pending motion. For that
reason, the Court does not reach the United States’ alternative contention that this
action must be dismissed because the Federal Aid Highway Act does not provide for
a private cause of action, which is an issue Keller simply ignores in her response.
-2-
1
28 U.S.C. § 1401(b). The Supreme Court has made it clear that courts are not free
2
to construe § 2401(b) “so as to defeat its obvious purpose, which is to encourage the
3
prompt presentation of claims.” United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 117 (1979);
4
Cadwalder v. United States, 45 F.3d 297, 300 (9th Cir.1995) (FTCA’s waiver of
5
sovereign immunity must be strictly construed in favor of the United States.)
6
As an initial matter, the Court rejects Keller’s argument, made without citation
7
to any supporting case law, that this action was timely filed as a matter of law
8
regardless of when the administrative claims were presented to the federal agency
9
because it is undisputed that it was commenced within six months after the
10
administrative claims were denied on March 18, 2011. Keller’s contention, which is
11
that a FTCA action is timely if a claim is either submitted to the federal agency within
12
two years of its accrual or if the action is begun within six months of the agency’s
13
final denial because § 2401(b) is written in the disjunctive, has been specifically
14
rejected by the Ninth Circuit, and by every other circuit that has considered the
15
contention. See Dyniewicz v. United States, 742 F.2d 484, 485 (9th Cir.1984)
16
(“Section 2401(b) establishes two jurisdictional hurdles. A claim must be filed with
17
the agency within two years of the claim’s accrual, and the claimant must file suit
18
within six months of administrative denial of the claim. If either requirement is not
19
met, suit will be time barred.”); accord, Ellison v. United States, 531 F.3d 359, 361-
20
63 (6th Cir. 2008)(Court concluded that although § 2401(b) is written in the
21
disjunctive, it is properly construed to mean that a FTCA claim is time-barred if the
22
claimant fails to meet either of the two limitations periods.); Houston v. U.S. Postal
23
Service, 823 F.2d 896, 902 (5th Cir.1987) (“Though phrased in the disjunctive, the
24
statute [§ 2401(b)] requires a claimant to file an administrative claim within two years
25
and file suit within six months of its denial.”) (emphasis in original), cert. denied, 485
26
-3-
1
U.S. 1006 (1988); Schuler v. United States, 628 F.2d 199, 201 (D.C. Cir.1980) (en
2
banc) (“Though [§ 2401(b)] is not happily drafted, common sense and legislative
3
history tell us that it requires the claimant both to file the claim with the agency within
4
two years after accrual of the claim and then to file a complaint in the District Court
5
within six months after the agency denies the claim.”)
6
Since the Court concludes that both limitations periods of § 2401(b) must be
7
met, the determinative issue here is when this action accrued for purposes of the
8
two-year limitations rule of § 2401(b), which is an issue on which the parties
9
disagree. The United States argues, and the Court concurs, that the accrual date
10
for both claims raised in the First Amended complaint was September 7, 2007, the
11
date of the accident.
12
With regards to the timeliness of the survival claim brought by Amanda
13
Keller’s estate, Keller, without citing to any FTCA-based supportive case law, argues
14
that because under Arizona law an estate can only take action through a personal
15
representative, the estate’s survival claim accrued either on July 16, 2009, when
16
Amanda Keller’s estate was created under Arizona law, or on July 28, 2009, when
17
Mary Jo Keller was appointed as the personal representative; she asserts that either
18
accrual date would have made her administrative claims filed on December 16, 2010
19
timely. Keller contends that because the creation of the estate and her appointment
20
as personal representative complied with the timeliness requirements of Arizona law,
21
then “under Arizona law, any statute of limitations were tolled until July, 2009."
22
Given that the FTCA’s statute of limitations must be strictly construed, the Court
23
cannot agree with Keller.
24
For purposes of § 2401(b), the date of accrual is determined solely by federal
25
law, not Arizona law. Bartleson v. United States, 96 F.3d 1270, 1276 and n.4 (9th Cir.
26
-4-
1
1996) (“The date on which an FTCA claim accrues is determined by federal law. ...
2
We have found no authority to indicate there are any situations in which federal law
3
does not govern the accrual of an FTCA claim.”); Washington v. United States, 769
4
F.2d 1436, 1438 (9th Cir.1985) (“The FTCA provides for a two-year statute of
5
limitations after a claim accrues. 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). The date on which a claim
6
accrues is determined by federal law.”); Poindexter v. United States, 647 F.2d 34,
7
36 (9th Cir.1981) (“It is long settled ... that the statute of limitations in the FTCA, 28
8
U.S.C. § 2401, governs in FTCA actions, even when the state period of limitations
9
is longer or shorter.) The controlling federal law mandates that tolling and other
10
provisions of state law regulating when an action may be brought are ineffective to
11
extend § 2401(b)’s strict two-year limitations period.3
12
3
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
To the extent that there is an issue regarding Keller’s ability to submit a
FTCA administrative claim on behalf of Amanda Keller’s estate, the crux of the issue
is not whether Keller had the legal authority under Arizona’s probate administration
laws to do so prior to being appointed personal representative, but rather whether
federal law foreclosed Keller from submitting an administrative claim for FTCA
purposes within two years of the accident, an issue which Keller does not address.
The Court concludes that Keller, as Amanda Keller’s mother, was not foreclosed
from timely submitting the required administrative claim prior to her appointment as
personal representative inasmuch as the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a
claimant’s parent has the legal authority to present a claim for FTCA purposes
notwithstanding that the parent has not been formally appointed under state law as
the claimant’s legal representative. Cf. Avila v. Immigration and Naturalization
Service, 731 F.2d 616, 619 (9th Cir.1984) (Court concluded an administrative claim
was validly submitted for FTCA purposes notwithstanding that it was signed and
submitted by a father on behalf of his adult incompetent son without the father
having been appointed his son’s conservator and it was not accompanied by any
written authorization entitling the father to act for his son.)
Furthermore, as the United States correctly notes, under Arizona law Keller
could have submitted a timely administrative claim prior to her appointment as
personal representative. See A.R.S. § 14-3108 (Provides in part that “[t]he powers
of a personal representative relate back in time to give acts by the person appointed
which are beneficial to the estate occurring prior to appointment the same effect as
-5-
1
Under the governing federal law, ordinary tort claims, which the negligence
2
and negligence per se claims here must be considered to be, accrue for FTCA
3
purposes when the plaintiff knows of his or her injury and the immediate physical
4
cause of the injury. Dyniewicz, 742 F.2d at 486; accord, Hensley v. United States,
5
531 F.3d 1052, 1057 (9th Cir.2008), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 2432 (2009). In this
6
case, there is no dispute that the fact of Amanda Keller’s death and the immediate
7
physical cause of her death, i.e. that the vehicle in which she was an occupant
8
crossed the roadway median through a cable barrier and crashed into an oncoming
9
vehicle, were known at the time of the accident. The date of the accident is
10
therefore the date of accrual as a matter of law. Dyniewicz, at 486-87 (Case involved
11
a FTCA-based wrongful death action brought in part by the personal representative
12
of the estates of two decedents who were killed when a flood swept their car off a
13
highway in Hawaii; the plaintiffs learned more than two years after the accident that
14
the negligence of National Park Service rangers might have been a cause of the
15
accident. In affirming the dismissal of the case as time-barred because the
16
administrative claim was not submitted within two years of accrual, the court
17
concluded that for accrual purposes the plaintiffs knew both the fact of injury and its
18
immediate physical cause, the flooded highway, at the time of the discovery of the
19
decedents’ bodies, and the plaintiffs’ ignorance at that time of the involvement of
20
federal employees was irrelevant.)
21
While conceding that “[f]ederal case law defining accrual for purposes of the
22
23
24
25
26
those occurring thereafter. ... A personal representative may ratify and accept acts
on behalf of the estate done by others where the acts would have been proper for
a personal representative.”)
Keller, in any case, could have timely submitted the administrative claim even
after her appointment as personal representative since the appointment occurred
less than two years after the accident.
-6-
1
FTCA essentially adopts an injury rule of accrual[,]” Keller argues that the
2
administrative claim for her wrongful death claim was timely submitted if the Court
3
applies the doctrine of equitable tolling to her. The Court concludes that it is not
4
authorized to do so. While the Court is aware that there is a circuit split as to
5
whether the time limits of § 2401(b) constitute a jurisdictional bar and that a credible
6
argument can be made that the Supreme Court may eventually conclude that the
7
statute is not jurisdictional in nature and is subject to equitable tolling, the Supreme
8
Court has not yet specifically addressed the issue and the current and controlling
9
position of the Ninth Circuit is clearly that the “statute of limitations in § 2401(b) is
10
jurisdictional and that the failure to file a claim within that time period deprives the
11
federal courts of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the doctrines of equitable estoppel and
12
equitable tolling do not apply.”) 4 Marley v. United States, 567 F.3d 1030, 1038 (9th
13
Cir.2009) (Case involved the six month limitations period of § 2401(b)), cert. denied,
14
4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The Court is aware that the same arguments raised by Keller concerning
the availability of equitable tolling to the FTCA’s statute of limitations, as well as
other arguments raised by Keller in this action, are currently on appeal before the
Ninth Circuit is a companion case to this one: June v. United States, Ninth Circuit
No. 11-17776 (Case involves a similar fatal accident involving a crash through
Interstate 10's cable barrier which was dismissed with prejudice for lack of
jurisdiction because the administrative claims required by the FTCA were not timely
presented to the Federal Highway Administration.) The Court is also aware that
another judge of this district has recently determined in a similar ongoing cable
barrier case that the FTCA’s statute of limitations is a non-jurisdictional claim
processing rule. Dunlap v. United States, CV 11-01360-PHX-FJM (Order denying
the United States’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, entered on February 16, 2012).
To the extent that Keller is arguing that the statute of limitations should be
tolled because the United States fraudulently concealed its involvement with the
allegedly negligent design of the median cable barrier, the Court concludes that the
allegations of the First Amended complaint, taken as true, are insufficient under the
Twombly/Iqbal standard to show that the United States, after the date of the
accident, engaged in any fraudulent concealment, misconduct, or trickery that lulled
Keller into letting her rights lapse.
-7-
1
130 S.Ct. 796 (2009); accord, Adams v. United States, 658 F.3d 928, 933 (9th
2
Cir.2011) (“The FTCA’s statute of limitations is jurisdictional and not subject to
3
equitable tolling or estoppel. ... Thus, FTCA claimants must strictly adhere to the
4
statute of limitations or lose the right to invoke federal jurisdiction.”) (Case involved
5
the six month limitations period of § 2401(b)); Banares v. Demore, 417 Fed.Appx.
6
638, 2011 WL 703108, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2011) (Case involved the two-year
7
limitations period of § 2401(b)). Because the Court concludes as a matter of law that
8
Keller failed to timely present her administrative claims as required by § 2401(b),
9
federal subject matter jurisdiction does not exist over this action. Therefore,
10
IT IS ORDERED that the United States’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) is granted
11
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and that this action is dismissed with prejudice.
12
The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
13
DATED this 18th day of July, 2012.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-8-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?