Martinez-Medina v. United States Department of Agriculture-Rural Development

Filing 14

ORDER granting 12 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Judgment will enter dismissing without prejudice the complaint filed herein. Signed by Judge Jose A. Fuste on 11/16/2015. (mrj)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

1
2
3
4

MARÍA MARTÍNEZ MEDINA,
Plaintiff,

Civil No. 3:15-CV-01859 (JAF)

v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE – RURAL
DEVELOPMENT, THROUGH ITS
DIRECTOR JOSÉ A. OTERO-GARCÍA,
Defendant.
5
6

ORDER

7

This matter is before the court on the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant United

8

States Department of Agriculture-Rural Development through its director José A. Otero-

9

García (“USDA-RD”) (ECF No. 12).

10

On May 15, 2015, Plaintiff María Martínez-Medina (“Martínez”) filed a complaint

11

in Puerto Rico Court of First Instance in Toa Alta against the USDA-RD, claiming

12

$1,000,000 in damages, $50,000 in attorney’s fees, and for reimbursement of $21,000 of

13

insurance proceeds paid by Cooperativa de Seguros Múltiples. Defendant USDA-RD

14

removed the matter to federal court.

15

On August 25, 2015, Defendant USDA-RD moved to dismiss Plaintiff Martínez’s

16

complaint. (ECF No. 12). In its motion, USDA-RD argues that this court lacks

17

jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), since the named defendant USDA-RD is not

18

a proper party in an action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, and because

19

Plaintiff Martínez failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Additionally, Defendant

Civil No. 3:15-CV-01859 (JAF)
1

USDA-RD asserts dismissal is warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

2

-2Plaintiff

Martínez failed to oppose the motion to dismiss.

3

“[I]t is within the district court’s discretion to dismiss an action based on a party’s

4

unexcused failure to respond to a dispositive motion when such response is required by

5

local rule,” so long as the result “does not clearly offend equity.” See NEPSK, Inc. v.

6

Town of Houlton, 283 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir.2002) Under Loc. R. 7(b), “[u]nless within

7

fourteen (14) days after the service of a motion the opposing party files a written

8

objection to the motion, incorporating a memorandum of law, the opposing party shall be

9

deemed to have waived objection.”

10

The court also finds merit to Defendant USDA-RD’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff

11

Martínez failed to properly name the United States as the proper party defendant. See

12

Roman v. Townsend, 224 F.3d 24, 28 (1st Cir. 2000) (citing Allgeier v. United States, 909

13

F.2d 869, 871 (6th Cir.1990) (“Failure to name the United States as defendant in an

14

FTCA suit results in a fatal lack of jurisdiction.”) (citations omitted)). “[T]he United

15

States is the only proper party defendant under the FTCA, and federal courts lack subject

16

matter jurisdiction as to purported FTCA claims brought against federal agencies or their

17

employees.” Barros-Villahermosa v. United States, No. CIV. 06-1491, 2007 WL

18

4149805, *4 (D.P.R. Nov. 19, 2007) (citing Aviles-Diaz v. United States, 194 F .Supp.2d

19

85, 86 (D.P.R. 2002).

20

Accordingly, Defendant United States Department of Agriculture-Rural

21

Development’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (ECF No. 12) is

Civil No. 3:15-CV-01859 (JAF)

-3-

1

GRANTED. Plaintiff María Martínez-Medina’s complaint is dismissed. Judgment shall

2

enter accordingly.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 16th day of November, 2015.

5
6
7

S/José Antonio Fusté
JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE