Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_24-cv-00049/USCOURTS-azd-4_24-cv-00049-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Francisco Javier Laborin Rodriguez,

Plaintiff,

v. 

United States of America, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-24-00049-TUC-RM

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Defendant United States of America’s Motion to 

Dismiss. (Doc. 11.) Plaintiff has filed a Response (Doc. 14) and a Supplemental 

Response (Doc. 16) to the Motion, and Defendant has filed a Reply (Doc. 15). For the 

following reasons, the Court will deny the Motion.

I. Background

Plaintiff alleges that on January 25, 2021, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(“CBP”) agent struck him and ran him over with a government vehicle. (Doc. 1.) Based 

on this alleged incident, Plaintiff asserts claims of negligence and negligence per se 

against Defendant United States of America (“Defendant”) pursuant to the Federal Tort 

Claims Act (“FTCA”). (Id.) The parties agree that Plaintiff timely submitted an 

administrative tort claim to CBP in accordance with the FTCA’s exhaustion requirement, 

and that CBP denied the claim in writing on July 25, 2023. (Doc. 11 at 2, 4; Doc. 14 at 

2.) The docket reflects that Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed on January 26, 2024. (Doc. 

1.) 

Case 4:24-cv-00049-RM Document 17 Filed 12/05/24 Page 1 of 5
- 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

In its Motion to Dismiss, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed 

one day after the FTCA’s six-month limitations period expired. (Doc. 11 at 4.) 

Defendant argues that because the untimeliness of Plaintiff’s suit is apparent on its face, 

the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 4.) 

II. Legal Standard

A district court may dismiss a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 

12(b)(6) on the basis that it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations “only when 

the running of the statute is apparent on the face of the complaint.” Von Saher v. Norton 

Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 969 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations 

omitted). Dismissal is not appropriate unless it is evident “beyond doubt that the plaintiff 

can prove no set of facts that would establish the timeliness of the claim.” Supermail 

Cargo, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir. 1995).

Under the FTCA, a tort claim against the United States must be filed in federal 

court “within six months after the date of mailing” of the relevant federal agency’s notice 

of denial of the claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b); see also United States v. Wong, 575 U.S. 

402, 405 (2015) (stating that an FTCA claim must be “brought to federal court ‘within six 

months’ after the agency acts on the claim”) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b)).

1

 

However, “[t]he limitations periods in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) are subject to the 

doctrine of equitable tolling.” Redlin v. United States, 921 F.3d 1133, 1141 n.9 (9th Cir. 

2019) (citing Wong, 575 U.S. at 411). To be entitled to equitable tolling, a litigant must 

establish “(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some 

extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.” Smith v. 

Davis, 953 F.3d 582, 588 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal quotations omitted).

1 Section § 2401(b) states in full: 

A tort claim against the United States shall be forever barred unless it is 

presented in writing to the appropriate Federal agency within two years 

after such claim accrues or unless action is begun within six months after 

the date of mailing, by certified or registered mail, of notice of final denial 

of the claim by the agency to which it was presented.

28 U.S.C. § 2401(b).

Case 4:24-cv-00049-RM Document 17 Filed 12/05/24 Page 2 of 5
- 3 -

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

III. Discussion

There is no dispute that CBP mailed Plaintiff a notice of final denial on July 25, 

2023 (Doc. 11 at 2, 4; Doc. 14 at 2), and that Plaintiff’s Complaint was not filed until

January 26, 2024 (Doc. 11 at 2, 5; Doc. 14 at 1, 6). Therefore, Plaintiff’s Complaint is 

untimely because it was filed one day after the statute of limitations expired on January 

25, 2024. Plaintiff’s argument that the statutory deadline was January 26, 2024, is 

inconsistent with Ninth Circuit precedent. In Redlin, the Ninth Circuit clarified that the 

six-month limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) “begins running as soon as the 

agency mails its initial final notice.” Redlin, 921 F.3d at 1139. Additionally, the Ninth 

Circuit upheld the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s FTCA claim under Rule 

12(b)(6) on the grounds that it was time-barred, concluding that since the agency denial 

letter was mailed on July 14, 2015, the complaint had to be filed by January 14, 2016, to 

be timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). Id at 1139-49.

Plaintiff argues, however, that his Complaint should be deemed timely under the 

doctrine of equitable tolling because he diligently pursued his rights and extraordinary 

circumstances prevented timely filing. (Doc. 14 at 4.) Specifically, Plaintiff explains 

that on January 24, 2024, his counsel’s paralegal, Shawna Cole, initiated this action by 

uploading the Complaint, Summons, and Civil Cover Sheet via the Court’s electronic 

filing system (“CM/ECF system”), paying the $405 filing fee, and receiving an email 

confirming the payment. (Id. at 2.) On January 25, 2024, counsel contacted Ms. Cole, 

who confirmed the lawsuit had been filed. (Id.) However, on January 26, 2024, a clerk’s 

office employee informed Ms. Cole that the Complaint had not been successfully 

uploaded. (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff states that Ms. Cole immediately followed the clerk’s 

instructions “to upload the Complaint document to the existing case that had been 

initiated on January 24.” (Id. at 3.) To support these assertions, Plaintiff has submitted 

Ms. Cole’s affidavit (Doc. 14-1; Doc. 16-4), the filing fee payment confirmation sent on 

January 24, 2024 (Doc. 14-2), the Civil Cover Sheet dated January 24, 2024 (Doc. 16-1), 

and metadata information for Plaintiff’s Civil Cover Sheet and Plaintiff’s Complaint 

Case 4:24-cv-00049-RM Document 17 Filed 12/05/24 Page 3 of 5
- 4 -

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

dated January 24, 2024 (Docs. 16-2; Doc. 16-3).

Defendant argues that equitable tolling is not warranted because Plaintiff was not 

“without fault” nor the victim of “extraordinary circumstances” beyond his control that 

would have prevented timely filing. (Doc. 11 at 4-6.) Defendant asserts that the filing 

issue resulted from “garden variety” error or negligence. (Id. at 5.) Thus, Defendant 

maintains that Plaintiff fails to satisfy either prong of the equitable tolling standard. (Id. 

at 4-6.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff satisfies both prongs for equitable tolling. First, 

Plaintiff has shown that he diligently pursued his rights. Ms. Cole acted reasonably by 

attempting to file the Complaint on January 24, 2024, the day before the statute of 

limitations expired. Plaintiff’s counsel reasonably believed the Complaint had been

successfully filed, as the filing fee was debited on January 24, 2024, and the CM/ECF 

system did not indicate a filing error. Upon learning of the issue on January 26, 2024, 

Ms. Cole promptly corrected the problem by uploading the Complaint to the existing 

case. These actions reflect diligent efforts to comply with the limitations period. 

The Court further finds that the failure to upload the Complaint, whether due to 

Ms. Cole’s actions or a CM/ECF system malfunction, constitutes an extraordinary 

circumstance beyond Plaintiff’s control. In this unique situation, Plaintiff reasonably 

relied on the CM/ECF system’s confirmation of the filing fee payment as evidence that 

the filing was completed. The unexpected filing failure, coupled with the lack of an

immediate error notification, is a circumstance that “stood in the way” of timely filing. 

Based on the preceding, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to equitable 

tolling. Accordingly, the Court will extend the filing deadline by one day and consider 

Plaintiff’s Complaint timely. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) will be denied.

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

Case 4:24-cv-00049-RM Document 17 Filed 12/05/24 Page 4 of 5
- 5 -

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

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant United States of America’s Motion to Dismiss 

(Doc. 11) is denied.

Dated this 5th day of December, 2024.

Case 4:24-cv-00049-RM Document 17 Filed 12/05/24 Page 5 of 5