Cuiriz-Lopez et al v. United States Navy et al

Filing 8

ORDER granting 8 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 3/07/2025. (jpp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

VANESSA CUIRIZ-LOPEZ; and
STEVEN LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 24-CV-2135-BEN-MSB
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
[ECF No. 8]

INTRODUCTION

19

This action involves Plaintiff Steven Lopez’s claim for loss-of-consortium arising

20

from a collision involving his wife Vanessa Cuiriz-Lopez. Defendant’s motion focuses

21

on Lopez’s compliance with the procedural requirements of the Federal Tort Claims

22

Act’s (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C.§§ 2401(b) and 2675(a), and whether the United States Navy

23

is a proper defendant under the FTCA.1

24

BACKGROUND
On November 22, 2022, Ms. Cuiriz-Lopez was involved in a collision with

25
26
27

Ms. Cuiriz-Lopez’s negligence claim against the United States proceeds separately and
is not addressed in this Order.
1

28

-124-CV-2135-BEN-MSB

1

Defendant Hruby, who was acting within the scope of her employment with the Navy

2

Exchange Service Command. Due to Ms. Cuiriz-Lopez’s injuries, Lopez seeks damages

3

for loss-of-consortium.

4

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

5

Plaintiffs originally filed their Complaint in the Superior Court of California, County

6

of San Diego (Case No. 24CUO19255C), on October 24, 2024 alleging negligence (Ms.

7

Cuiriz-Lopez) and loss-of-consortium (Lopez) against Hruby and the United States Navy.

8

On November 14, 2024, the Navy removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28

9

U.S.C.§ 1442(a)(1). Defendant filed a Notice of Substitution accompanied by the

10

Attorney General’s delegee’s certification that Hurby was acting within the scope of her

11

employment at the time of the accident. This Court approved the substitution on

12

November 20, 2024. Defendant subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 13,

13

2025.

14

LEGAL STANDARD

15

A motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) challenges the Court’s subject-

16

matter jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only the

17

power authorized by the Constitution and federal statutes. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life

18

Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.375, 377 (1994). Subject-matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue

19

that cannot be forfeited or waived. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S.500, 514 (2006).

20

A party may raise a jurisdictional challenge at any stage of litigation. See Id. at 506

21

(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(h)(3)). Jurisdiction is presumed absent unless the

22

party asserting it affirmatively demonstrates its existence. See Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at

23

377. The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction is proper, even when

24

the defendant moves to dismiss. Liggett v. Utah Higher Educ. Assistance Auth., No.8:19-

25

cv-01589-JLS-ADS, 2020 WL 1972286, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb.3, 2020); see also Sopcak

26

v. N. Mountain Helicopter Serv., 52 F.3d 817, 818 (9th Cir.1995). If the Court

27

determines it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, dismissal of the claim is mandatory. Fed.

28

R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
-224-CV-2135-BEN-MSB

1

DISCUSSION

2

Federal Tort Claims Act

3

1. Waiver of Sovereign Immunity & Exclusive Remedy

4

The FTCA waives the United States’ sovereign immunity for certain tort claims

5

“under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the

6

claimant” under applicable state law. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). It provides the exclusive

7

remedy for tortious conduct by federal employees acting within the scope of their

8

employment. 28 U.S.C. § 2679; FDIC v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998).

9

2. Proper Defendant

10

Under the FTCA, “[t]he United States is the only proper defendant.” Lance v.

11

United States, 70 F.3d 1093, 1095 (9th Cir. 1995). Federal agencies, such as the United

12

States Navy, cannot be sued eo nomine under the FTCA absent explicit statutory

13

authorization, which is not present here. Allen v. Veterans Admin., 749 F.2d 1386, 1388

14

(9th Cir. 1984).

15

Here, Plaintiffs named the United States Navy as a defendant. Because the FTCA

16

designates the United States as the only proper defendant, the Navy must be dismissed

17

from this action. Additionally, following the Attorney General’s delegee’s certification

18

that Hruby acted within the scope of her employment, the United States was statutorily

19

substituted for Ms. Hruby under 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1); Pauly v. USDA, 348 F.3d 1143,

20

1150–51 (9th Cir. 2003). This substitution, approved by the Court, requires dismissal of

21

Hruby from the case. See Id.

22
23

3. Exhaustion Requirement
The FTCA bars suits against the United States unless the claimant first presents an

24

administrative claim and receives a final denial or waits six months without a decision.

25

28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 111–13 (1993). This

26

exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional and non-waivable. Jerves v. United States, 996

27

F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1992). Additionally, under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), the

28

administrative claim must be submitted within two years of the claim’s accrual. Failure
-324-CV-2135-BEN-MSB

1

to comply with this deadline precludes federal court jurisdiction. Brady v. United States,

2

211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 1995). Plaintiffs must affirmatively allege and prove

3

compliance with these timeliness requirements. Gillespie v.Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 640

4

(9th Cir. 1980). Here, Lopez did not file an administrative claim with the Navy for his

5

loss-of-consortium claim within the two-year period following the collision. Because

6

Lopez failed to timely present his claim, the Court lacks jurisdiction over his loss-of-

7

consortium claim.

8

CONCLUSION

9

Lopez failed to file and exhaust an administrative claim for loss of consortium

10

within the two years required by 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), rendering his claim time-barred

11

and depriving this Court of subject-matter jurisdiction. Further, the United States Navy is

12

not a proper defendant under the FTCA, as the United States is the sole permissible

13

defendant. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as

14

follows:

15
16

1. Lopez’s loss-of-consortium claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.

17

2. The United States Navy is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE from this lawsuit.

18

3. Cuiriz-Lopez’s negligence claim against the United States remains pending.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

March 7, 2025
HON.ROGER T.BENITEZ
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-

24-CV-2135-BEN-MSB