Wright et al v. United States of America
Filing
15
ORDER and REASONS re 11 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. ORDERED that the United States Motion to Dismiss Marlow J. Wrights individual capacity claims is GRANTED.Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 11/2/2011. (mm, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHEILA B. WRIGHT and MARLOW J.
WRIGHT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF THEIR MINOR CHILDREN,
M. W. 1., M. W. 2, and M. W. 3
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 11-625
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SECTION: “C” (2)
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant the United States. (Rec. Doc. 11).
Plaintiffs Sheila B. Wright and Marlow J. Wright filed no opposition to this Motion. Having
reviewed the record, the memorandum of the United States, and the applicable law, the Court
GRANTS the United States’ Motion for the following reasons.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed this suit “individually and on behalf of their minor children” against the
United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671, et seq. (“FTCA”), seeking
compensation for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident between Sheila B. Wright
and Robert L. Jarrett, a United States Postal Service (“USPS”) employee, which Plaintiffs allege
occurred because of Jarrett’s negligence while acting in the scope of his employment. (Rec. Doc.
1 at ¶¶ 1-2). Plaintiffs claim that they filed timely FTCA administrative claims to the USPS,
engaged in settlement negotiations with the USPS, and sent a final settlement demand to the USPS
1
on August 10, 2010. (Rec. Doc. ¶ 3). They allege that the USPS had not responded to that demand
as of the filing of this suit, on March 21, 2011, and that all prerequisites for a FCTA claim had been
met at that time. (Rec. Doc. 1 at ¶ 3). In its Motion, the United States acknowledge that Sheila B.
Wright and her three minor children exhausted their administrative remedies by each filing his or
her own administrative tort claims to the USPS prior to suing the USPS. (Rec. Doc. 11-2 at 2). The
United States contends, however, that Marlow J. Wright failed to do so, and thus that his individual
capacity FCTA claims should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule
12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Rec. Doc. 11-2 at 2).
II. LAW & ANALYSIS
A court that lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate a case must dismiss the
case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Home Builders Ass’n of Miss. v. City of Madison, Miss.,
143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1981). When a defendant moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the court
has subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Paterson v. Weinberger, 644 F.2d 521, 523 (5th Cir.
1981); Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002). As the United
States has moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), the burden is on Plaintiffs to establish that this
Court has subject matter jurisdiction.
Any tort claims that Plaintiffs seek to bring against the United States are governed by the
FTCA, which waives the United States’ sovereign immunity for certain money damage claims. 28
U.S.C. § 1346(b), § 2671, et seq. Under the FCTA, a party has two years within which to file a
claim for a tort against the federal government. However, before filing suit, the plaintiff must
exhaust his or her administrative remedies to the appropriate federal agency and that claim must
2
have been finally denied by the agency in writing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). The failure of an
agency to make a final disposition of claim within six months after it is filed is deemed a final denial
of the claim. See id. Furthermore, an administrative claim submitted after a lawsuit is filed cannot
cure a jurisdicitonal defect which was present when the suit was filed. McNeill v. United States, 508
U.S. 106, 106 (1980).
Here, Plaintiffs’ injuries arise out of an accident allegedly caused by a USPS employee’s
negligent driving, a typical tort claim. The United States does not dispute Plaintiffs’ claim that
Sheila B. Wright and her three minor children timely filed administrative claims to the USPS. (Rec.
Doc. 11-2 at 2). It argues, however, that “based on a search of USPS records,” that Marlow J.
Wright did not file an administrative claim. Given Marlow J. Wright’s lack of opposition to the
United States’ Motion and the absence of allegations in the complaint suggesting that he filed an
administrative claim, he has failed to meet his burden under Rule 12(b)(1). Thus, the Court
concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Marlow J. Wright’s individual capacity FTCA
claims.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the United States’ Motion to Dismiss Marlow J. Wright’s individual
capacity claims is GRANTED.1
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 2nd day of November, 2011.
______________________________
HELEN G. BERRIGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
Marlow J. Wright’s representative capacity claims, however, are not dismissed.
3
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?