Krogen v. The United States of America, et al.

Filing 40

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER TO CLOSE CASE signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/4/2016. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

JULIE KROGEN,

9

1:14-cv-1266-LJO-MJS
Plaintiff,

10

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER TO CLOSE CASE

v.

11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
12

Defendant.

13
14
15

Plaintiff Julie Krogen (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendant the United States of

16 America (“The Government”) for the wrongful death of her husband under the Federal Torts Claims Act
17 (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2671. On June 9, 2015, the Government moved to dismiss the case under Fed. R.
18 Civ. Pro. 12(b)(1) on the basis that Plaintiff’s claims are pre-empted by the Federal Employee
19 Compensation Act (“FECA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101(1)(B), 8116(c). Mot. to Dismiss, or in the Alternative,
20 for Summ. J., Doc. 25-1. On August 28, 2015, this Court found there was substantial question as to
21 whether FECA applies and stayed the case pending a determination by the Secretary of Labor as to that
22 issue. Doc. 33.
23

On December 23, 2015, the parties submitted a joint status report indicating that the Secretary

24 had reached a decision that Plaintiff’s claims are covered by FECA. Notice of Decision, Doc. 37.
25 Accordingly, the parties requested that the stay in the case be lifted. Id. The Court agreed that it was
1

1

appropriate to lift the stay. Doc. 38. The Court also found that, in light of the Secretary’s decision, it

2

appeared that the Court lacked subject matter subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s case. Id. The

3

Court ordered to Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the case should not be dismissed, or in the

4

alternative, to file a pleading entitled “matter submitted.” Id. On December 31, 2015, Plaintiff filed a

5

response to the Court’s order entitled “matter submitted,” Doc. 39, indicating that there is no reason not

6

to dismiss the case.

7

Accordingly, and for the reasons outlined in previous orders, the Court finds that it lacks subject

8

matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims and ORDERS this case to be DISMISSED WITH

9

PREJUDICE.

10

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

11

For the reasons discussed above, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to DISMISS THIS

12 CASE WITH PREJUDICE.
13
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
15

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

January 4, 2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2