Pritchett v. Federal Emergency Management Agency et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 11/6/2014. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 11/6/14)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division

*

*

SABRINA M. PRITCHETT,

*

Plaintiff,

Case No.: GJH-14-02996

v.

*
FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY, et al.

*
Defendants.

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM

*

*

*

*

*

*

OPINION

This action is brought by unrepresented Plaintiff Sabrina M. Pritchett against her former
employer, the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") and the Maryland Board of
Appeals, Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation ("DLLR") appealing the DLLR's
denial

of unemployment

benefits.

This Memorandum

and accompanying

Order address

Defendant FEMA's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 13, and supporting memorandum, ECF No. 131. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion and the time for doing so has passed. The Court finds that
a hearing is unnecessary.

See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons stated below, Defendant

FEMA's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court for
Prince George's County, Maryland.
I.

BACKGROUND
According to FEMA's unopposed motion to dismiss, Plaintiff worked at a FEMA call

center from September 2003 until October 2013 when she was terminated. ECF No. 13-1 at 1.
On December 4, 2013, a DLLR Claims Specialist determined that Plaintiff was not eligible for
unemployment benefits under Md. Code, Lab & Empl.

S 8-1002

because she was terminated for

"gross misconduct."

ld. at 2. Plaintiff appealed to DLLR's Lower Appeals Division, which

concurred with the Claims Specialist. Id. Plaintiff then appealed to DLLR's Board of Appeals,
but the Board found it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because it was untimely filed.
ECF No. 13-7.
Plaintiff filed a "Petition for Judicial Review" in the Maryland Circuit Court for Prince
George's

County, which states only that she is appealing DLLR's denial of unemployment

benefits. See ECF NO.2. She also named her former employer, FEMA, as a party. Id. FEMA has
removed the case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

S

1442(a)(l) ("A civil action or criminal

prosecution that is commenced in a State court and that is against or directed to [the United
States or any agency thereof] may be removed by them to the district court of the United States
for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending.").
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
"It is well established that before a federal court can decide the merits of a claim, the

claim must invoke the jurisdiction of the court." Miller v. Brown, 462 F.3d 312, 316 (4th Cir.
2006). Thus, "[t]he objection that a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction may be raised
by a party, or by a court on its own initiative, at any stage in the litigation .... " Arbaugh v. Y &
H Co!p., 546 U.S. 500,506 (2006). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(I) governs motions to
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Khoury v. Meserve, 628 F. Supp. 2d 600, 606
(D. Md. 2003), aff'd, 85 F. App'x 960 (4th Cir. 2004). Once such a motion is made, the plaintiff
bears the burden of proving that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. See Evans v. B.F.
Perkins Co., a Div. of Standex Int'! Corp., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999); see also
Ferdinand-Davenport

v. Children's Guild, 742 F. Supp. 2d 772, 777 (D. Md. 2010); Khowy,

268 F.Supp.2d at 606.

2

The court should grant a Rule 12(b)(I) motion "only if the material jurisdictional

facts

are not in dispute and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law." Evans, 166 F. 3d
at 647. In ruling on a motion under Rule 12(b)(1), the court "should 'regard the pleadings as
mere evidence on the issue, and may consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting
the proceeding

to one for summary judgment.'"

Ferdinand-Davenport,

742 F. Supp. 2d at

777 (quoting Evans, 166 F.3d at 647); see also Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. Co.
v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991).
III.

DISCUSSION
a. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Plaintiffs

unemployment

claim against her former employer, FEMA, related to the denial of state
benefits, is barred by sovereign immunity. "(S]overeign immunity shields the

federal government and its agencies from suit." FD.I.C

v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471,475

However, the United States can waive its sovereign immunity. Welch v.

u.s., 409

(1994).

F.3d 646, 650

(2005). That waiver must be unequivocal and any alleged waiver is strictly construed in favor of
the retention of sovereign immunity. Jd. at 650-51. lt is Plaintiffs

burden to show that a waiver

exists. Jd. at 651. Without a waiver of sovereign immunity, a federal court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the federal government. FD.I.C,

510 U.S. at 475.

Although the United State's has consented to some state torts under the Federal Tort
Claims Act, none of those torts involve the denial of state unemployment benefits. See 28 U.S.C.

S

2675. The Court can find no waiver of sovereign immunity relating to Plaintiffs

appeal, and

Plaintiff has not opposed FEMA's motion to dismiss or provided any support for an alleged
waiver. Plaintiff has not met her burden to show that a waiver exists, and FEMA is therefore

3

DISMISSED

from this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(1).1
b. Remand
"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only that power authorized
by Constitution

and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree." Kokkonen v.

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). There is no
presumption that a federal court has jurisdiction. Pinkley, Inc. v. City of Frederick, 191 F.3d 394,
399 (4th Cir. 1999). A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction generally through federal
question or diversity jurisdiction.
must satisfy the requirement

For this Court to have subject matter jurisdiction, a plaintiff

of 28 U.S.C. ~ 1331, which provides the district courts with

jurisdiction over "all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States." Alternatively,
jurisdiction,

this Court may have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.c.

~ 1332, diversity

which provides jurisdiction over all civil actions "where the matter in controversy

exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests of costs and is between [ ] citizens of
different States .... "
28 U.S.C. ~ 1447(c) provides, " ...

[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that

the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded ... " As the court
As FEMA points out, this Court could also find that it lacks jurisdiction because the
Maryland state court lacks jurisdiction over FEMA in this case, and the federal court's
jurisdiction is derivative of the state court's jurisdiction prior to removal. ECF No. 13-1 at 8
(citing Palmer v. City Nat. Bank ofW Va., 498 F.3d 236, 248 (4th Cir. 2007)).
FEMA also argues that Plaintiffs petition for judicial review fails to state a claim against
FEMA. Because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs suit, the Court will
not opine as to the merits of Plaintiff s claims. See Miller v. Brown, 462 F.3d 312, 316 (4th Cir.
2006) ("It is well established that before a federal court can decide the merits of a claim, the
claim must invoke the jurisdiction of the court.").

4

may raise issues of subject matter jurisdiction sua ::,ponte, it may also enter a remand order sua
sponte. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006). Plaintiffs

appeal contemplates

review of a state agency's denial of unemployment benefits. The statutory provisions governing
Maryland's unemployment benefits can be found at Md. Code, Labor & Employment

99

8-101

et seq. Under those provisions, a final decision of DLLR's Board of Appeals must be appealed to
a Maryland circuit court. See Md. Code, Labor & Employment

9 8-5A-12.

Although 28 U.S.c.

9

1442(a)(1) permitted FEMA to remove Plaintiffs action to federal court because a United States
agency was a party, the Court is dismissing FEMA as a party to this action, and the action raises
no federal question and is not based on diversity jurisdiction.

Thus, this Court lacks subject

matter jurisdiction and the case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court for Prince George's County,
Maryland.

IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Motion to Dismiss FEMA as a party, ECF No. 13, is
GRANTED. Further, this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court for Prince George's County,
Maryland for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
A separate Order shall issue.

/t~/k--

Dated: November 6,2014

GEORGE J. HAZEL
United States District Judge

5