ADU v. POST OFFICE
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION FILED. Signed by Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 11/1/11. (js)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
AGNES ADU,
HON. JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Plaintiff,
Civil No. 11-2635 (JBS/JS)
v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
POST OFFICE,
Defendant.
SIMANDLE, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the unopposed motion of
Defendant Post Office1 (hereafter, “United States Postal Service”
or “USPS”) to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
[Docket Item 4.]
1.
The Court finds as follows:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initially filed this
action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special
Civil Part on April 28, 2011.
[Docket Item 1, Ex. A.]
On May 9,
2011, the action was thereafter removed to this Court by
Defendant USPS.
2.
[Docket Item 1.]
On May 17, 2011, Defendant filed its motion to dismiss
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
1
[Docket Item 4.]
Plaintiff has not responded in
Plaintiff’s Complaint named, as the sole defendant in this
action, “Post Office.” The Court construes Plaintiff’s Complaint
to name the United States Postal Service, an agency of the United
States federal government. See Dilg v. U.S. Postal Serv., 635 F.
Supp. 406, 407 (D.N.J. 1986) (“the Postal Service is clearly a
‘federal agency’ within the broad definition of that term in [28
U.S.C.] § 2671").
opposition to Defendants’ motion.
3.
Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks damages in the amount of
$1,000 for Defendant’s loss of a phone that Plaintiff apparently
sent through the mail.
Not. of Removal Ex. A.
However, the
papers filed by Defendant in this matter lead the Court to
suspect that the Court does not have access to the full pleadings
submitted by Plaintiff in this matter.
4.
In Defendant’s notice of removal, Defendant recounts
Plaintiff’s allegations as follows:
This is a civil action seeking damages for
injuries Plaintiff alleges she sustained as
the direct and proximate result of the Postal
Service’s negligent processing and/or handling
of an Express Mail package that Plaintiff
mailed to a residential address in the Bronx,
New York. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges
that when she presented her package for
mailing, the postal clerk asked her if she
wanted to purchase insurance and when she
declined because she had previously mailed a
package to the same address without a problem,
he stated that her package would get lost.
Not. of Removal ¶ 2.
However, the Court notes that the attached
summons and Complaint contain no such detailed allegations.
The
total allegations contained in the documents attached to
Defendant’s Notice of Removal state that Plaintiff seeks $1,000
(Not. of Removal Ex. A Form B) and that in the section marked
“state the reasons you, the Plaintiff(s), are suing the
Defendant(s): attach additional sheets if necessary” Plaintiff
states “The Phone got Lost.”
(Not. of Removal Ex. A Form A.)
2
The Court, therefore, concludes that Defendant has received
additional pleadings from Plaintiff that were not included in the
attached Exhibit A.
5.
The Court is therefore unable to decide Defendant’s
motion, as Defendant relies on alleged facts not present in the
pleadings submitted to the Court.
For example, in Defendant’s
motion to dismiss, Defendant argues, in part, that Plaintiff
failed to exhaust available administrative remedies by failing to
comply with the Domestic Mail Manual’s provisions regarding
Express Mail.
However, the pleadings submitted to the Court
contain no mention of Express Mail.
6.
It is the responsibility of the removing party -- here,
the Post Office -- to attach to its notice of removal “a copy of
all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant,”
28 U.S.C. § 1446(a).
Apparently, the Post Office has not done so
herein.
7.
Consequently, the Court will deny Defendant’s motion
without prejudice to refiling an amended motion or resubmitting
the same motion after submitting to the Court any omitted
portions of Plaintiff’s pleadings.
The accompanying Order will
be entered.
November 1, 2011
Date
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
United States District Judge
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?