Douglas v. United States Postal Service

Filing 15

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS; VACATING HEARING. The action is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 12, 2009. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2009) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/14/2009: # 1 Certificate of Service) (fj, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 As the United States points out, the United States is the sole proper defendant to the instant action. See Allen v. Veterans Admin., 749 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1984) (noting "[t]he Federal Tort Claims Act provides that the United States is the sole party which may be sued for personal injuries arising out of the negligence of its employees"; further noting "[i]ndividual agencies of the United States may not be sued"). 2 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ERIKA DOUGLAS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendants. / No. C-08-5045 MMC ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS; VACATING HEARING United States District Court Before the Court is defendant United States of America's ("United States") Motion to Dismiss, filed November 13, 2008.1 No opposition has been filed.2 Having read and considered the papers filed in support of the motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate for decision thereon, hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for January 16, 2009, and, for the reasons stated by the United States in its Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of its motion, hereby GRANTS the motion. Accordingly, the instant action is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 12, 2009 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge On December 30, 2008, the United States filed a reply.

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?