Burkhart v. United States Postal Service et al

Filing 25

Memorandum and Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 11 . LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (Written Opinion). Signed by The Hon. Paul A. Magnuson on 08/27/2013. (LLM) (cc: Marc J. Burkhart) Modified on 8/27/2013 (jz).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Marc J. Burkhart,

Civil No. 13-767 (PAM/JJK)
Plaintiff,

v.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

United States Postal Service,
Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the
alternative, for Summary Judgment. For the reasons that follow, the Motion is granted.
BACKGROUND
In July 2012, Plaintiff Marc Burkhart sent his son a new Apple iPhone 4s via United
States Mail. Burkhart insured the package, which also included a used Blackberry mobile
phone, for $1,000. (Pl.’s Opp’n Mem. (Docket No. 24) at 1-2.) Unfortunately, the iPhone
was stolen while en route from Minnesota to Massachusetts.1 On August 15, 2012, Burkhart
filed a claim with the USPS seeking reimbursement for the phone. (Sigmon Decl. Ex.
(Docket No. 15) Ex. A at 4.) Although the receipt he attached to the claim reflects a sales
price of $199.99, Burkhart requested reimbursement in the amount of $800. (Id. at 5-6.) On
September 26, 2012, the USPS issued Burkhart a check for $199.99. (Id. at 7.)

1

The Blackberry phone was not stolen and is not at issue.

Burkhart protested the amount and again requested reimbursement in the amount of
$800. (Id. at 10.) He reasoned that he purchased a replacement phone, a newer version of
iPhone, the iPhone 5, for $699.99 plus tax and additional fees for software and activation.
(Id.) The receipt for the replacement phone indicates that he paid a total of $751.94 for the
new phone and related accessories. (Pl.’s Opp’n Mem. Ex. 2.) Burkhart acknowledges that
he paid $199.99 for the original iPhone, but explains that the deal he secured on that phone
was not offered at the time he purchased its replacement. (Id.; Sigmon Decl. Ex. A.)
The USPS denied Burkhart’s request for additional compensation and his subsequent
appeals for reconsideration. (See Sigmon Decl. Ex. A at 10-15.) The USPS explained that
insured articles are reimbursed based on the “actual loss sustained and not the amount of
insurance purchased” and that loss amount is determined by “evidence of value,” such as a
receipt, invoice, or credit card statement. (Id. Ex. B at 1.) The USPS further explained that
“actual loss” is the fair market value of the item at the time of mailing, not the item’s
replacement cost. (Id.) Burkhart exhausted his administrative remedies and then sued in
Brown County Conciliation Court. (Compl. (Docket No. 2) Exs. A-B.) The USPS removed
the case to this Court and now moves to dismiss the case.
DISCUSSION
For purposes of a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
the Court takes all facts alleged in the complaint as true. See Westcott v. Omaha, 901 F.2d
1486, 1488 (8th Cir. 1990). The Court must construe the factual allegations in the complaint
and reasonable inferences arising from the complaint favorably to the plaintiff and will grant
2

a motion to dismiss only if “it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts
which would entitle him to relief.” Morton v. Becker, 793 F.2d 185, 187 (8th Cir. 1986)
(citations omitted). The complaint must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
The USPS argues that it is immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
The Court agrees.
Sovereign immunity protects the federal government and its agencies from suit.
Because the USPS “is an independent establishment of the executive branch of the
Government of the United States,” with “significant governmental powers,” it “enjoys federal
sovereign immunity absent a waiver.” Najbar v. United States, 649 F.3d 868, 870 (8th Cir.
2011) cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 2378 (U.S. 2012) (quoting Dolan v. United States, 546 U.S.
481, 483-84 (2006)).
In the Federal Tort Claims Act, Congress enacted a limited waiver of the United States’
sovereign immunity for claims arising out of torts committed by federal employees. The
FTCA permits “claims against the United States, for money damages . . . for injury or loss of
property . . . caused by negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the
Government while acting within the scope of his employment . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1).
The FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity is limited by a series of exceptions listed at 28
U.S.C. § 2680. Pertinent to this case, the USPS is immune from suit for “[a]ny claim arising
out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2680(b). The Supreme Court has explained that “Congress intended to retain immunity, as
3

a general rule, only for injuries arising, directly or consequentially, because mail either fails
to arrive at all or arrives late, in damaged condition, or at the wrong address.” Dolan, 546
U.S. at 489.
This matter falls squarely within the plain language and meaning of § 2680(b).
Burkhart alleges that the mail he sent did not arrive at its intended destination. The fact that
the phone is alleged to have been stolen,2 rather than merely lost, does not change the analysis
or the result. See Johnson v. United States, No. 08-cv-314, 2009 WL 236375 *3 (D. Neb. Jan.
29, 2009) (“[T]he United States enjoys sovereign immunity for lost-mail claims . . . . even
where, as happened here, a mail room employee engages in theft.). The United States has not
waived its grant of sovereign immunity for claims such as this involving lost or stolen mail.
Burkhart’s claim must therefore be dismissed because the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction.

2

There is no indication in the record as to whether the phone was stolen by a postal
employee or someone else.
4

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, and upon all of the files, records, and
proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
(Docket No. 11) is GRANTED.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: August 27, 2013

s/ Paul A. Magnuson
Paul A. Magnuson
United States District Court Judge

5