Flynn v. Dennis et al
ORDER granting 6 Motion to Dismiss Defendants Ashburn and the United States; plaintiff's claims against Ashburn and the United States are DISMISSED without prejudice; the Court DECLINES to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims; this case is REMANDED to Pierce County Superior Court; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)
HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
CASE NO. C17-5316RBL
JESSICA DENNIS, et al.,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS AND REMANDING
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant United States’ Motion to Dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction. [Dkt. #6]. This is a tort claim arising from an automobile accident allegedly
caused by Defendant Beatrice Ashburn. Ashburn is an FDIC employee. The United States claims
that Ashburn was at all times acting within the scope of her official FDIC duties.
Flynn filed a Notice of Administrative Claim with the FDIC in May, and it has not yet
been reviewed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). The United States seeks
dismissal because Flynn has not yet exhausted her administrative remedies and because it has not
waived its sovereign immunity unless and until she does.
Flynn argues that the U.S. Attorneys’ “certification” that Ashburn was acting within the
scope of her official capacity is insufficient to establish that “fact” for jurisdictional purposes,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND
REMANDING - 1
and that there is no evidence from which this court can make that determination. Alternatively,
she asks that the claims against Ashburn be dismissed without prejudice and her remaining
claims (against Defendants Dennis and Ortiz) be remanded to state court.
The United States argues in reply that Flynn has conceded that she has not exhausted her
administrative remedies and that she has not raised a legitimate question about the scope of
The Court agrees. There is no reason to doubt the certification, and in the absence of any
evidence that Ashburn was acting outside the scope of her employment at the time of the
accident, discovery into this topic is not warranted. Cf. Meridian Intern. Logistics, Inc., v. United
States, 939 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1991) (plaintiff opposed dismissal with evidence challenging the
“scope” determination). There is an administrative process now underway.
The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and Flynn’s claims against Ashburn and the
United States are DISMISSED without prejudice.
Because this Motion is the only substantive matter that has been addressed by this Court,
the Court DECLINES to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and the remainder of the case is REMANDED to Pierce County
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 14th day of June, 2017.
Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge
[DKT. #6] - 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?