Lafferty v. Liu et al
Filing
47
ORDER granting Defendant United State of America's 35 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed as to the United States, relating to any and all common law tort claims asserted against David Heenan. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
SHANE LAFFERTY, a single person,
10
11
Plaintiff,
v.
12
13
14
CHRISTOPHER LIU, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. C17-0749RSM
ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES’
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
15
16
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant United States of America’s Motion to
17
Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Dkt. #35. Plaintiff Shane Lafferty failed to file
18
any response brief. Except for motions for summary judgment, if a party fails to file papers in
19
20
21
opposition to a motion, such failure may be considered by the court as an admission that the
motion has merit. LCR 7(b)(2).
22
On March 28, 2018, the United States filed a Notice of Substitution to substitute the
23
United States of America for David Heenan for the purposes of all common law tort claims
24
against him. Dkt. #28. It has been determined by Defendant United States that Mr. Heenan was
25
26
acting within the course and scope of his employment as a Swinomish Indian Tribal Community
27
Police Officer and pursuant to a grant under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
28
Assistance Act (“ISDEAA”) at the time of the claims in this litigation. See Dkt. No. 28-1. The
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL AND AWARDING FEES - 1
1
Court sees nothing in the record to disagree with that conclusion. Plaintiff did not file an
2
administrative claim with the United States Department of the Interior or Bureau of Indian Affairs
3
prior to filing a lawsuit in state court. See Dkt. #36. The Court finds that Defendant’s requested
4
relief is proper given the record and the requirements of the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”).
5
See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993); Brady v. United
6
7
8
9
10
States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 2000).
Accordingly, having considered the relevant briefing, supporting declarations, and the
remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS:
Defendant United States of America’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter
11
Jurisdiction (Dkt. #35) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed as to the
12
13
United States, relating to any and all common law tort claims asserted against David
14
Heenan.
15
16
DATED this 18 day of June, 2018.
17
18
19
20
A
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL AND AWARDING FEES - 2
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?