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