Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01929/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01929-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1331mm Fed. Question: Medical Malpractice

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KATIE MONIER, as an individual,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 17-cv-1929-WQH-BGS

vs. ORDER 

THE UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA, and Does 1-10, 

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant the

United States of America. (ECF No. 4).

I. Background

Plaintiff Katie Monier’s causes of action arising out of a vaccination administered

to her at San Ysidro Health Center. See ECF No. 1-3 at 5, 6. On April 10, 2017,

Monier filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego,

against Centro de Salud de la Comunidad de San Ysidro Inc. (“Centro”) (ECF No. 1-3). 

On September 22, 2017, the United States of America removed the case to this Court

and filed a Notice of Substitution of the United States of America as Defendant for

Centro. (ECF Nos. 1, 2). On February 26, 2014, the United States filed the Motion to

Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (ECF No. 4) pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The docket reflects that Monier did not file a

response to the Motion to Dismiss. 

- 1 - 17-cv-1929-WQH-BGS

Case 3:17-cv-01929-WQH-BGS Document 5 Filed 11/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 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

II. Standard of Review

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

may attack the substance of the jurisdictional allegations even though the allegations

are formally sufficient. St. Clair v. City of Chico, 880 F.2d 199, 201 (9th Cir. 1989). 

The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that the court has subject

matter jurisdiction over its claims. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.

375, 377 (1994). 

III. Ruling of the Court

The United States contends that Monier never presented an administrative claim

to the United States and therefore failed to comply with the jurisdictional prerequisites

of an action brought under 42 U.S.C § 233. (ECF No. 4-1 at 2). The United States

contends that, consequently, the Court lacks jurisdiction and Plaintiff’s action must be

dismissed. Id.

Pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, a jurisdictional prerequisite to bringing

a lawsuit in federal court against the United States in tort is the filing of an

administrative claim with the appropriate federal agency. Jerves v. United States, 966

F.2d 517, 518-19 (9th Cir. 1992). Once the administrative claim has been filed, the

federal agency has six months to act. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). The claimant can file a civil

suit under the FTCA only after the agency either denies the claim in writing or fails to

make a final disposition of the claim within six months after it is filed. Id. Thus,

“‘[t]he statutory procedure is clear.’ A tort claimant may not commence proceedings in

court against the United States without first filing . . . [a] claim with an appropriate

federal agency and either receiving a conclusive denial of the claim from the agency or

waiting for six months to elapse without a final disposition of the claim being made.” 

Jerves, 966 F.2d at 519 (quoting Caton v. United States, 495 F.2d 635, 638 (9th

Cir.1974)).

A lawsuit filed prior to the exhaustion of a claimant’s administrative claim is

premature and must be dismissed. McNeil v. U.S., 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). As a

- 2 - 17-cv-1929-WQH-BGS

Case 3:17-cv-01929-WQH-BGS Document 5 Filed 11/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 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

general rule, a premature complaint cannot be cured through amendment; instead, the

claimant must file a new suit. Duplan v. U.S., 188 F.3d 1195, 1199 (10th Cir. 1999)

(citing Sparrow v. USPS, 823 F. Supp. 252, 254-55 (E.D. Cal. 1993)). “Allowing

claimants generally to bring new suit under the FTCA before exhausting their

administrative remedies and to cure the jurisdictional defect by filing an amended

complaint would render the exhaustion requirement meaningless and impose an

unnecessary burden on the judicial system.” Duplan, 188 F.3d at 1199. 

Monier has not shown that she presented an administrative claim to the

appropriate federal agency. Monier’s action against the United States was premature

and the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Monier’s claims. See

Jerves, 966 F.2d at 519. 

IV. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the United States’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No.

4) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-3) is DISMISSED without

Prejudice. 

DATED: November 20, 2017

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 17-cv-1929-WQH-BGS

Case 3:17-cv-01929-WQH-BGS Document 5 Filed 11/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3