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)

Download PDF
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?