Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02511/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02511-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS LYNN STEELE,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

NO. C05-2511 TEH 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS

LAKE COUNTY TRIBAL

HEALTH CONSORTIUM AND

THOMAS RANGEL

JOHN DEMARTINI, as Guardian Ad

Litem for B.I.S., R.A.D., and C.M.S.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LAKE COUNTY TRIBAL HEALTH

CONSORTIUM, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C05-4399 TEH

These cases come before the Court on a motion to dismiss brought by Defendants

Lake County Tribal Health Consortium and Thomas Rangel. After carefully reviewing the

parties’ written arguments, the pleadings, and relevant law, the Court has determined that

oral argument is unnecessary and hereby cancels the motion hearing scheduled for March 20,

2006. For the reasons discussed below, the Court now GRANTS Defendants’ motion in its

entirety.

BACKGROUND

These two consolidated cases arise from a September 21, 2004 collision that resulted

in the death of Tracy DeMartini. DeMartini was a passenger on a motorcycle being driven

by her partner, Plaintiff Curtis Steele, when the motorcycle collided with a vehicle being

Case 3:05-cv-02511-TEH Document 39 Filed 03/13/06 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

driven by Defendant Thomas Rangel, an employee of Defendant Lake County Tribal Health

Consortium. The Consortium is a California corporation under contract with the Indian

Health Service, an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services of

Defendant United States.

On June 21, 2005, Steele filed a negligence action, Steele v. United States, based on

the above collision. John DeMartini filed a separate action, DeMartini v. Lake County Tribal

Health Consortium, in state court as guardian ad litem for B.I.S., R.A.D., and C.M.S., the

three minor children of Tracy DeMartini. Following DeMartini’s filing of a second amended

complaint on October 25, 2005, the United States removed the DeMartini case to this Court.

DISCUSSION

Defendants Lake County Tribal Health Consortium and Rangel now contend that they

are entitled to tribal sovereign immunity. These Defendants seek either dismissal of all

claims against them or substitution of the United States as a defendant under the following

provision:

With respect to claims resulting from the performance of

functions during fiscal year 1991 and thereafter . . . under a

contract, grant agreement, or any other agreement or

compact authorized by the Indian Self-Determination and

Education Assistance Act of 1975, as amended, . . . an Indian

tribe, tribal organization or Indian contractor is deemed

hereafter to be part of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the

Department of the Interior or the Indian Health Service in the

Department of Health and Human Services while carrying

out any such contract or agreement and its employees are

deemed employees of the Bureau or Service while acting

within the scope of their employment in carrying out the

contract or agreement: Provided, That after September 30,

1990, any civil action or proceeding involving such claims

brought hereafter against any tribe, tribal organization,

Indian contractor or tribal employee covered by this

provision shall be deemed to be an action against the United

States and will be defended by the Attorney General and be

afforded the full protection and coverage of the Federal Tort

Claims Act.

Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1991, Pub. L. No. 101-

512, Tit. III, § 314, 104 Stat. 1959 (1990), as amended by Department of the Interior and

Case 3:05-cv-02511-TEH Document 39 Filed 03/13/06 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994, Pub. L. 103-138, Tit. III, § 308, 107 Stat. 1416

(1993) (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 450f notes).

Plaintiffs do not dispute the dismissal of all claims against Defendant Lake County

Tribal Health Consortium. Although the United States contends that the Consortium has not

yet demonstrated that it is entitled to sovereign immunity, that is besides the point. 

Plaintiffs’ non-opposition operates as a stipulation for dismissal between Plaintiffs and the

Consortium, and the United States has presented no argument as to why it, a third-party

defendant, should be allowed to contest such a stipulation. Accordingly, with good cause

appearing, the Court grants dismissal of Defendant Lake County Tribal Health Consortium

with prejudice.

Both Plaintiffs and Defendant United States, however, contest the dismissal of

Defendant Rangel. In addition, the United States argues that it is premature to substitute the

United States in Rangel’s place as a defendant because it remains unclear whether Rangel

was acting in furtherance of the federal contract at the time of the collision. 

As the United States acknowledges, the Court must, at this stage of the proceedings,

“accept all material allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most

favorable to [Plaintiffs].” NL Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Here, Plaintiff in the Steele action repeatedly alleges that Defendant Rangel was “acting in

the scope of his employment” at the time of the accident. Steele Compl. ¶¶ 6, 9-11. 

Similarly, in the DeMartini action, Plaintiffs allege that the Consortium and the United States

“owned the motor vehicle which was operated with their permission” and “employed

[Rangel] who operated a motor vehicle in the course of [his] employment.” DeMartini

Second Am. Compl. ¶ MV-2(a)-(c). The DeMartini plaintiffs also allege that Rangel was

“the agent[] and employee[] of the other defendants and acted within the scope of the

agency.” Id. ¶ MV-2(e). Based on these allegations, the Court must accept that Rangel was

acting within the scope of his employment for purposes of analyzing this motion to dismiss. 

Consequently, on the face of the complaints, the Federal Tort Claims Act applies, and the

United States is the proper defendant. Accordingly, with good cause appearing, the Court

Case 3:05-cv-02511-TEH Document 39 Filed 03/13/06 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

grants dismissal of Defendant Thomas Rangel without prejudice. If further discovery reveals

that Rangel was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the collision,

then the Court will consider granting Plaintiffs leave to amend to reinstate their claims

against Rangel.

Although the Court finds that the United States is the proper defendant based on the

allegations in the complaints, the Court is also not unaware of the provisions under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2679(d) that allow the United States “the right to decide the scope of employment issue in

the first instance” – a decision that “is conclusive unless challenged.” Green v. Hall, 8 F.3d

695, 698 (9th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the Court will allow the United States approximately

thirty days in which to make its certification decision. If the United States declines to certify

that Rangel was acting within the scope of his employment, Rangel may petition this Court to

review the certification decision. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(3). To prevail in such a challenge,

Rangel must disprove the United States’s decision by a preponderance of the evidence. 

Green, 8 F.3d at 698.

CONCLUSION

In sum, for the above reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Lake Tribal

Health Consortium is hereby dismissed with prejudice, and Defendant Thomas Rangel is

dismissed without prejudice. To facilitate the proceedings in these cases, IT IS FURTHER

ORDERED that:

1. The parties shall meet and confer regarding whether Rangel was actually acting

within the scope of his employment at the time of the collision.

2. The United States shall file, on or before April 14, 2006, a certification or

declination to certify that Rangel was acting within the scope of his employment at the time

of the collision.

3. If the United States declines to make this certification, then Rangel shall have

thirty calendar days from the date of the declination in which to file a motion for review of

the United States’s certification decision.

Case 3:05-cv-02511-TEH Document 39 Filed 03/13/06 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

4. If the United States does certify that Rangel was acting within the scope of his

employment, then no further case management proceedings shall be necessary unless

otherwise requested by the parties, and all dates and provisions of the October 24, 2005

Order for Pretrial Preparation shall remain in full effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 03/13/06 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:05-cv-02511-TEH Document 39 Filed 03/13/06 Page 5 of 5