Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04594/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04594-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

1

Murch did not provide the Court with a chambers copy of her opposition, despite the

Court’s having specifically advised her counsel at the case management conference,

conducted January 5, 2007, to provide such copy. Nevertheless, the Court has considered

the opposition. For future reference, Murch is referred to the following provision in the

Court’s Standing Orders: “In all cases that have been assigned to the Electronic Case

Filing Program, the parties are required to provide for use in chambers one paper copy of

each document that is filed electronically. The paper copy of each such document shall be

delivered no later than noon on the day after the document is filed electronically. The

paper copy shall be marked ‘Chambers Copy’ and shall be delivered to the Clerk’s Office in

an envelope clearly marked with the judge’s name, case number, and ‘E-Filing Chambers

Copy.’”

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEVAKI MURCH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG

ADMINISTRATION; WILLIAM BRIAN

MARTIN,

Defendants /

No. C-06-4594 MMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

MARTIN’S MOTION TO DISMISS;

VACATING HEARING 

Before the Court is defendant William Brian Martin’s (“Martin”) motion, filed

December 20, 2006, to dismiss plaintiff Devaki Murch’s (“Murch”) complaint for failure to

state a claim, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or, in the

alternative, for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to Rule 12(c). Murch has filed

opposition,1

 to which Martin has replied. Having considered the papers filed in support of

and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate for decision on the

papers, VACATES the hearing scheduled for January 26, 2007, and rules as follows.

Case 3:06-cv-04594-MMC Document 27 Filed 01/16/07 Page 1 of 2
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

The FDA has not moved to dismiss the claims alleged against it.

2

In her complaint, Murch alleges she sustained injuries on June 29, 2002 as a result

of Martin’s negligent driving while acting within the scope of his employment with defendant

United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”).2

 (See Compl. ¶¶ 3-6.) If Murch

establishes such allegation, the only proper defendant to Murch’s federal claim is the

United States. See Ward v. Gordon, 999 F. 3d 1399, 1404 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding, under

Federal Tort Claims Act, where individual alleged to have been negligent was acting within

scope of employment with United States at time of incident, individual was “absolutely

immune from suit” and United States “must be substituted” as defendant). Consequently,

the Court understands Murch, in naming Martin as an additional defendant, to be asserting

a state law negligence claim, based on the alternative theory that Martin was not acting

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

With that understanding, the Court finds, for the reasons stated by Martin, that

Murch’s state law claim against Martin is barred by the statute of limitations. In her

opposition, Murch does not request leave to amend in the event her state law claim is

deemed barred by the statute of the limitations, nor has she identified any potentially

applicable exception thereto.

Accordingly, Martin is entitled to dismissal of Murch’s state law claim.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, Martin’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for judgment

on the pleadings is hereby GRANTED, and Murch’s claim against Martin is hereby

DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04594-MMC Document 27 Filed 01/16/07 Page 2 of 2