Traci J. Priest et al v. United States of America et al

Filing 14

MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court GRANTS the United States' motion to dismiss 11 . Plaintiffs shall have 14 days from the date of this order, up to and including 12/4/2017, to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Court Reporter: Laura Elias. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’
5:16-cv-01528-CAS(SPx)
Date November 20, 2017
TRACI J. PRIEST ET AL. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ET AL.

Present: The Honorable 
Catherine Jeang 
Deputy Clerk 

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER 

N/A 

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Defendants: 

Laura Elias 
Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: 

Sayeh Khoei 
Timothy Biche, AUSA
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF
Proceedings:  
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND FAILURE TO STATE
A CLAIM (dkt. 11, Filed October 23, 2017)

I.

INTRODUCTION

On July 12, 2016, plaintiffs Traci Priest and David Priest filed a complaint against
defendants United States of America (the “United States”) and United States Department
of Agriculture Forest Service (the “Forest Service”).1 Dkt. 1 (“Compl.”). Plaintiffs
assert claims for negligence and loss of consortium stemming from personal injuries that
Traci Priest allegedly suffered in the parking lot of a visitor center.
On October 23, 2017, the United States filed the instant motion to dismiss. Dkt. 11
(“MTD”). On October 30, 2017, plaintiffs filed their opposition, dkt. 12 (“Opp’n”), and
on November 6, 2017, the United States filed its reply, dkt. 13 (“Reply”).
Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the Court finds and concludes
as follows.
II.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs allege the following facts.

On or about June 7, 2014, Traci Priest was a passenger on a bus that arrived at
Grassy Hollow Park and Visitor Center on Angeles Crest Highway in Wrightwood,
California (“the premises”). Compl. ¶ 6. Plaintiffs allege that the United States
constructed, managed, inspected, and operated the premises. Id. ¶ 5. The bus driver was
directed to park the bus in a particular location on the premises, and plaintiffs allege that

1

Plaintiffs agree to voluntary dismissal of the Forest Service. See Opp’n at 6.

CV-05128 (11/17)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 5 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’
5:16-cv-01528-CAS(SPx)
Date November 20, 2017
TRACI J. PRIEST ET AL. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ET AL.

“it was known that the bus was carrying passengers who, once the bus parked, would be
required to disembark the bus.” Id. ¶ 6. Plaintiffs allege that a dangerous condition
existed on the premises because the surface upon which passengers disembarked was in a
state of disrepair.2 Id.
Plaintiffs further allege that the United States, through its employees and agents,
negligently maintained and operated the parking lot. Id. ¶ 7. When Traci Priest
disembarked from the bus, the dangerous condition caused her to sustain injuries to her
foot and ankle. Id. Plaintiffs allege that, as a proximate cause of the United States’
negligence, Traci Priest was injured insofar as she sustained bodily injuries and injury to
her nervous system. Id. ¶ 9. These injuries have caused and continue to cause Traci
Priest mental, physical, nervous pain, in addition to mental anguish, fright, humiliation,
and emotional trauma. Id. ¶¶ 9, 11. Traci Priest has incurred and will incur future
medical expenses in the examination, care, and treatment of her injuries that include
“serious injuries to her foot and ankle, requiring surgery.” Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiffs further
allege that Traci Priest, as a result of these injuries, is unable to pursue her vocation and
suffers from a loss of earnings and a loss of earning capacity. Id. ¶ 12.
Plaintiffs allege that David Priest is the husband of Traci Priest, and as a direct
result of the United States’ negligence, he has suffered a loss of his wife’s love, comfort,
companionship, affections, society, solace, moral support, and physical assistance in the
operation and maintenance of the family home. Id. ¶ 16.
Plaintiffs assert that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section
1436(b) because their claims are founded upon the filing of a Federal Tort Claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2671(b).
III.

LEGAL STANDARDS
A.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

A motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the claims
asserted in a complaint. Under this Rule, a district court properly dismisses a claim if
“there is a ‘lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged
under a cognizable legal theory.’ ” Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1242

2

Plaintiffs allege that this state of disrepair included “pot hole, unevenness, loose
gravel, and slippery substances.” Compl. ¶ 6.

CV-05128 (11/17)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 5 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’
5:16-cv-01528-CAS(SPx)
Date November 20, 2017
TRACI J. PRIEST ET AL. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ET AL.

(9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Balisteri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.
1988)). “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need
detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his
‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “[F]actual allegations must be enough to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level.” Id.
In considering a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a court must accept as true all
material allegations in the complaint, as well as all reasonable inferences to be drawn
from them. Pareto v. FDIC, 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1998). The complaint must be
read in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Sprewell v. Golden State
Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). However, “a court considering a motion to
dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than
conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can
provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009); see Moss v. United States Secret Service,
572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[F]or a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the
non-conclusory ‘factual content,’ and reasonable inferences from that content, must be
plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.”). Ultimately,
“[d]etermining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a
context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience
and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
IV.

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, the United States contends that the Court should dismiss
plaintiffs’ claims against the Forest Service because an individual agency is not a proper
party to a Federal Tort Claim Act (“FTCA”) action. MTD at 3–4. Plaintiffs consent to
the dismissal of the Forest Service. Opp’n at 6.
The United States further argues that plaintiffs fail to adequately allege facts
sufficient to establish that it owed Traci Priest any legal duty insofar as plaintiffs fail to
include any allegations regarding duty. Id. at 4–5. Second, it argues that plaintiffs fail to
allege sufficient facts regarding how the parking lot was in a state of disrepair, or what
actions by what actors caused the alleged condition. Id. at 5. The United States argues
that plaintiffs’ allegations prevent it from accurately evaluating potential defenses to the
negligence claim. Id.

CV-05128 (11/17)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 5 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’
5:16-cv-01528-CAS(SPx)
Date November 20, 2017
TRACI J. PRIEST ET AL. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ET AL.

With respect to David Priest’s loss of consortium claim, the United States argues
that because plaintiffs fail to state a claim for negligence, this claim fails as a matter of
law. Id. at 6. Second, it contends that plaintiffs fail to allege specific facts about how
David Priest has suffered a loss of consortium, and that plaintiffs have instead recited the
general elements of a loss of consortium. Id.
In opposition, plaintiffs argue that general negligence principles govern the
liability of landowners and those who manage property, and accordingly, premises
liability is a form of negligence in which the manager has a duty to exercise ordinary care
in the management of the premises. Opp’n at 7. They argue that negligence can be
alleged in general terms, and that they properly alleged the duty of the United States by
alleging that it “constructed, designed, managed, maintained, modified, repaired,
inspected and/or operated the premises.” Id. Moreover, they contend that the Complaint
includes sufficient allegations to demonstrate breach. Id. at 8. With respect to David
Priest’s loss of consortium claim, plaintiffs contend that the Complaint includes “each
element required to state a cause of action.” Id. at 9.
In reply, the United States argues that the complaint is devoid of factual
allegations, which hinders its ability to analyze and plead its defenses to plaintiffs’
claims. Reply at 3. Plaintiffs fail to give adequate notice of the conduct for which they
seek to hold the United States liable. Id. at 4. For example, the United States does not
know whether plaintiffs assert negligence on behalf of the unidentified bus driver, or the
person who directed the bus to park in a particular location. Id. Accordingly, it does not
know whether plaintiffs’ claim may be subject to FTCA defenses such as the independent
contractor or discretionary function exceptions.
The FTCA provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity. United States v.
Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 813 (1976). The Act makes the federal government liable to the
same extent as a private party for certain torts of federal employees acting within the
scope of their employment. Id. Specifically, the United States may be liable “in the
same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances.”
United States v. Olson, 546 U.S. 43, 46–47 (2005) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2674); see also
28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1)1. “Liability is determined by the tort law of the state where the
claim arose.” Gasho v. United States, 39 F.3d 1420, 1427 (9th Cir. 1994); see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1346(b).

CV-05128 (11/17)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 4 of 5 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’
5:16-cv-01528-CAS(SPx)
Date November 20, 2017
TRACI J. PRIEST ET AL. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ET AL.

The elements of a cause of action for negligence in California are: (1) a legal duty
to use due care; (2) a breach of that legal duty; and (3) the breach was the proximate or
legal cause of the resulting injury.” Ladd v. Cnty. of San Mateo, 12 Cal.4th 913, 917–18,
(1996). The Court concludes that plaintiffs have not adequately alleged a legal duty to
use due care. Merely alleging that the United States “constructed, designed, managed,
maintained, modified, repaired, inspected and/or operated the premises” does not
explicitly allege what duty was owed to plaintiffs. See Romero v. Superior Court, 89
Cal. App. 4th 1068, 1078 (2001) (“Absent a legal duty, any injury is an injury without
actionable wrong.”) Moreover, it is unclear whether plaintiffs’ allegations demonstrating
breach are premised on the actions of the bus driver, or the individual who directed the
bus driver to the area of the lot that was allegedly negligently maintained, or the actions
of the United States as caretaker of the parking lot. The United States is properly entitled
to know whether it can assert certain defenses unique to FTCA claims. Without
sufficient allegations to demonstrate the first and second elements of plaintiffs’ claim for
negligence, plaintiffs’ claims for negligence and loss of consortium fail. Accordingly,
the Court GRANTS without prejudice the United States’ motion to dismiss.
V.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the United States’ motion to
dismiss. Plaintiffs shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of this order, up to and
including December 4, 2017, to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies
identified herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Preparer

CV-05128 (11/17)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

: 
00 
                    CMJ 

01 

Page 5 of 5