Tomko v. United States of America
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard D. Bennett on 12/3/2018. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 12.6.18)
IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT
PAULA A TOMKO,
OF i\IARYLAND
*
Plaintiff,
*
v.
*
STATES OF AMERICA,
*
UNITED
*
Defendant.
*
*
*
Civil Action No. RD 13-I 8-1 029
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM
Pro Je Plaintiff Paula A Tomko ("Plaintiff'
or "Tomko")
*
*
Defendant
United States of America ("United
*
*
OPINION
brings this action against the
States" or "Defendant"),
alleging that the
United States Postal Service ("USPS") failed to timely deliver a package. (Comp!., ECF No.
2.) Currently
Defendant's
pending
are the Plaintiffs
Motion
to Remand
(ECF
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12). The parties' submissions
and no hearing is necessary.
that follow, Plaintiffs
No.
have been reviewed
See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. Dec. 1, 2018).
Motion to Remand (ECF No. 11) is DENIED
11) and the
For the reasons
and the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
In ruling on a motion to dismiss, this Court "accept[sj as true all well-pleaded facts in
a complaint
and construe[s]
them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff."
FONt/d. v. Nat'l Set: Agm€)', 857 F.3d 193, 208 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing 503,
Duker (U.S.) Jm:, 801 F.3d 412, 422 (4th Cir. 2015».
has "liberally construed"
lf7ikimedia
lie v. Blade &
Further, as apro Je Plaintiff, this Court
Tomko's pleadings and held them to "less stringent standards than
1
formal pleadings drafted
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); A//ry I'.
by lawyers." E,i,hon
Yadkin County SheliffDept., No. 17-1249,698
l'. I\pp'X 141, 2017 WI. 4415771 (4th Cit. Oct.
5,2017).
On January
22, 2018, Tomko
mailed a package containing
a book
to Romulus,
Michigan via United States Postal Service ("USPS") two-day priority mail. (Compl., ECl' No.
2.) Despite paying for two-day priority mail, she asserts that the book did not arrive at its
intended destination
until January 29, 2018. (Id.) On March 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant
action in the District Court for Harford County, Maryland against Wendy M. Hutchins, Post
Master for USPS's Abington
Post Office, asserting that she was not able to teach a class
because the book arrived late. (Id.) Hutchins removed the case to this Court (ECl' No.1),
and thereafter
Defendant,
filed a Motion
to Substitute
which this Court granted.'
the United States of America
as the proper
(ECl' Nos. 6,7.) On April 24, 2018, the Plaintiff filed
a Motion to Remand this case back to the District Court for Harford County. (ECl' No. 11.)
On May 16, 2018, the Defendant
filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECl' No. 12.)
STANDARD
I.
Motion
A defendant
OF REVIEW
to Remand
in a state civil action may remove the case to federal court only if the
federal court can exercise original jurisdiction
over at least one of the asserted claims. 28
U.S.c. ~ 1441 (a)-(c). Once an action is removed
to federal court, the plaintiff may file a
motion to remand the case to state court if there is a contention
that jurisdiction is defective.
Because the Plaintiff sues Hutchins for monetary damages related to alleged actions taken within the scope
of Hutchins' employment for the United States, Plaintiffs exclusive remedy is against the United States. See
28 U.S.c. ~ 1346.
1
2
28 U.S.c. ~ 1447(c). The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction
Jobnson I'. Advan,'e Amerim,
in the federal court.
549 F.3d 932, 935 (4th Cir. 2008).
On a
motion to remand, this Court must "strictly construe
the removal statute and resolve all
doubts in favor of remanding the case to state court."
Ricbardson v. Pbillip Moms, 1m:, 950 F.
Supp. 700, 701-02 (D. ]\!d. 1997) (citation omitted); see also DL"
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?