Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00243/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00243-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Wrongful Death

---

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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SARA ALVARADO, individually and as CASE NO. CV-F-09-243 LJO SMS

guardian ad litem, MARTIN ALVARADO,

VIVIAN ALVARADO, FABIAN ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

ALVARADO, and ANGEL ALVARADO, DISMISS (Doc. 27)

Plaintiffs,

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

 /

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Sara Alvarado, individually and as guardian ad litem on behalf of her children, Martin

Alvarado, Vivian Alvarado, Fabian Alvarado, and Angel Alvarado (“Plaintiffs”) bring this survivor

action against defendant United States of America (“government”), asserting claims for negligence and

premises liability arising from the February 7, 2007 death of Martin Alvarado (“Mr. Alvarado”) on

February7, 2007 at the Dos Amigos Pumping Plant (“Dos Amigos”). The government moves to dismiss

this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), arguing that the “independent contractor” exception to

the Federal Torts Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §2671 et seq. (“FTCA”), bars jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’

claims. In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that the independent contractor exception to the FTCA is

inapplicable, because the claims are based on the alleged direct negligence of employees of the

government, not vicarious liability for the negligent acts of a contractor. In reply, the government argues

that Plaintiffs fail to identify negligent acts of the government, and reiterate that this Court lacks

jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ vicarious liability claims. Forthe following reasons, this Court DISMISSES

Plaintiffs’ complaint with leave to amend.

1

Case 1:09-cv-00243-LJO -SMS Document 41 Filed 07/29/10 Page 1 of 12
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

BACKGROUND

Mr. Alvarado was employed by the State of California (“State”) as a member of a scuba diving

team. On February 7, 2007, Mr. Alvarado and a companion diver were assigned to inspect portions of

the underwater intake at Dos Amigos, a water pumping plant facility located southwest of Los Banos,

California. One of the pumps was running at full capacity at the time of the dive. Mr. Alvarado and 1

his companion diver were swept by the pumping water into a grate that was housing one of the pumps. 

The force of the water pinned the divers to this grate, which was obstructed partiallyby the accumulation

of trash. The divers were unable to extricate themselves from the grate, and Mr. Alvarado and his

companion diver drowned.

Plaintiffs are Mr. Alvarado’s wife and heirs. The State Workers’ Compensation Board awarded

Plaintiffs $320,000 plus attorneys fees on June 10, 2008 in connection with Mr. Alvarado’s death.

Declaration of Alyson Berg (“Berg Decl.”), Ex. A. On February 6, 2009, Plaintiffs initiated this action

against the government. Plaintiffs allege that the government “created a dangerous condition for divers

at Dos Amigos” and that the government’s employees were negligent in several ways, including: the

divers were allowed to dive at Dos Amigos when one of the pumps was in full speed operation; no lockout/tag-out procedure was implemented for the underwater inspection; divers were allowed to dive

without a top side tender or communication capability, contrary to commercial dive standards and the

government’s Diving Safe Practices Manual; when the divers did not emerge within a reasonable period

of time, no emergency shutdown procedure of the operating pump was instituted either locally or

remotely in Sacramento; no job hazard analysis was required to assess the risks the divers would be

exposed to when diving with one of the pumps in full operation; no criteria was furnished or

implemented for anticipated diving activities in the course of routine maintenance at the facilities; and

despite knowing the trash system was inoperative, the government failed to assess the impact of the

collection of trash against the trash racks, which increased the water velocity, on diver safety. Based on

these allegations, Plaintiffs assert claims for negligence and premises liability against the government.

Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Alvarado was inspecting portions of the underwater intake at Dos Amigos Pumping Plant.

1

Compl., ¶10. In opposition to this motion, however, Plaintiffs write that “evidence is being developed that Defendant

specifically requested this dive for the purposes of inspecting for quagga mussels.” Pl. Reply, p. 9. As this allegation is

unsupported, this Court considers for purposes of this motion the allegations of the complaint.

2

Case 1:09-cv-00243-LJO -SMS Document 41 Filed 07/29/10 Page 2 of 12
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

The government moved to dismiss on July 1, 2010. The government argues that this Court lacks

jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims based on the independent contractor exception to the FTCA. In

support of its motion, the government provides the following:

Dos Amigos is part of the San Luis Unit of the Central Valley Project. The Central Valley

Project is the “largest federal water management project in the United States.” Westlands Water Dist.

v. United States, 337 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2003). The State initially authorized construction of the

Central Valley Project in 1933, but the federal government took over administration of the project in

1935 pursuant to the Reclamation Act of 1902. Westlands, 337 F.3d at 1095. The Central ValleyProject

is made up of a series of dams, reservoirs, hydropower generating stations, canals, electrical transmission

lines, and other infrastructure. United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 U.S. 725, 733 (1950). In

1960, Congress authorized the construction of the San Luis Unit of the Central Valley Project, the

principal purpose of which was to furnish waterfor the irrigation of approximately 500,000 acres of land

in Merced, Fresno, and Kings Counties. Act of June 3, 1960, Pub. L. No. 86-488, 74 Stat, 156. The San

Luis Unit includes the San Luis Dam and Reservoir, the San Luis Canal, and various pumping plants,

including Dos Amigos.

Dos Amigos is a “joint use” facility, owned by the federal government, and operated by the

State. San Luis Unit joint use facilities were authorized byCongress in 1960, when Congress authorized

the Secretary of the Department of the Interior (“DOI”) to enter into an agreement with the State that

“shall provide, among other things, that the Secretary may turn over to the State the care, operation, and

maintenance of any works of the San Luis unit which are used jointly by the United States and the State

at such time and under such conditions as shall be agreed upon by the Secretary and the State[.]” Pub.

L. No. 86-488, Section 3(g). Pursuant to this instruction, DOI entered into an agreement with the State’s

Department of Water Resources (“1961 Agreement”) on December 31, 1961. The 1961 Agreement

provided that when construction of a joint use facility neared completion, “the United States shall notify

the State, and the State shall furnish operating personnel to begin operation and maintenance of the

completed works under the direction of the United States.” Berg Decl., Ex. A, ¶20(a). Upon so doing,

the 1961 Agreement provides that “the State will operate and maintain such facilities or the unit in such

a manner that the works shall remain in good and efficient condition to perform the storage and

3

Case 1:09-cv-00243-LJO -SMS Document 41 Filed 07/29/10 Page 3 of 12
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

conveyance of water as well and as efficiently as on the date of transfer.” Id., ¶20(b). Each joint use

facility, including all appurtenances, equipment, supplies, manuals, and records, was to be transferred

to the State “as a complete unit, insofar as possible, ready for operation in all respects.” Id., 20(c). Once

transferred, the “State shall undertake property any maintenance and replacements on the joint use

facilities which are determined by either party to be necessary.” Id., ¶20(d). The government completed

construction of Dos Amigo and transferred it to the State for operation and maintenance in 1968.

The 1961 Agreement requires the government to pay “an equitable share of the operation,

maintenance, and replacement costs of the joint-use facilities, including claims paid by either party.” 

In addition, the 1961 Agreement allows the government “from time to time to make an appropriate

inspection of the facilities...to ascertain whether the requirements of this agreement are being

satisfactorily performed by the State.” To take over the care, operation and maintenance of a joint-use

facility, the government must first notify the State of how the State has failed to perform its obligations

under the agreement and give the State at least two months to cure the default. Id., ¶¶21(a), 22(a). The

government has not invoked these takeover provisions as to Dos Amigos.

The government and the State entered into a supplemental agreement regarding the operation of

the San Luis Unit on January12, 1972 (“1972 Supplement”). Declaration of Pennino (“Pennino Decl.”),

Ex. B. Among other things, the 1972 Supplement provides: “If an emergency occurs which requires

immediate change in the operation or immediate action for maintenance or replacement of any facility

operated by the State, the State shall notify the United States of such emergency and shall promptly

undertake emergency operation, maintenance or replacement as may be required.” Id., ¶23(a). It also

allows the government “from time to time, [to] perform or participate in the care, operation,

maintenance, and replacement of the joint-use...facilities” but only if the government had an advance

agreement from the State about such work. Id., ¶24. 

The State Department of Water Resources was operating the pumps and conductingmaintenance

at Dos Amigos on the day of the incident at issue in this action. Pennino Decl., ¶4. No government

employees were present at Dos Amigos when the incident occurred. Pennino Decl., ¶5.

Plaintiffs do not dispute the foregoing facts, but add the following:

The 1972 Supplement contains a certain explanatory recital that notes the 1961 Agreement

4

Case 1:09-cv-00243-LJO -SMS Document 41 Filed 07/29/10 Page 4 of 12
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

“provides that the State shall operate and maintain the joint-use facilities of the San Luis Unit but leaves

for future agreement details relating to such operation and maintenance.” Pennino Decl., Ex. B, 2:14-17. 

 Paragraph 22 of the 1972 Supplement provides that the State will operate and maintain the facilities,

but will do so “under criteria furnished by the United States.” Id., ¶22. In addition, the State will

undertake maintenance that the United States directs the State to perform. Id.

2

The 1972 Supplement requires the State to comply with certain federal laws. For example,

Paragraph 40 requires the State to include in all contracts entered into in connection with the care,

operation, and maintenance of facilities, that the contractor must comply with federal wage and hour

laws. Moreover, Paragraph 41 memorializes the State’s agreement to adhere to federal equal protection

and non-discrimination laws, and to afford those provisions to all State employees, contractors, and labor

unions affiliated with the facilities.

In addition to the 1961 Agreement and 1972 Supplement, the government and State entered into

two other agreements with provisions Plaintiffs suggest are applicable to this action. On November 24,

1986, the parties entered into an agreement that provides for correction of water sharing in the event of

outages for scheduled or unscheduled maintenance (“1986 Agreement”). Pl. R.J.N., Ex. 1, ¶10(c). The

1986Agreement also repeatsthe equal opportunityand anti-discrimination requirementsfor employment

found in the 1972 Supplement. Id., ¶20. The parties entered into an agreement regarding operating

procedures in February 1997 (“1997 Agreement”). Pl. R.J.N. Ex. 2. Section 5 of the 1997 Agreement,

relating to outages, provides that the State will coordinate all scheduled outages in advance with the

government. The 1997 Agreement recognizes that short-term outages and outages on the Annual

Outages Plan will be necessary from time to time for routine maintenance. Id. Pursuant to the 1997

Agreement, the State will notify the government of “all status changes...such as...unit start and stop

time...and any other limitation affecting the capability of the Joint-Use Facilities.” Id., ¶7.1.

In addition to the provisions of these agreements, Plaintiffs assert that the government has

established safety criteria and directives for the San Luis Unit. These include mandatory fall protection

(Deposition ofElizabeth Partridge (“Partridge Depo.”), pp. 83-84, 117-118); mandatorylock-out/tag-out

Paragraph 22 of the 1972 Supplement, and its provisions, apply to “federal-only facilities,” as distinguished from

2

joint-use facilities.

5

Case 1:09-cv-00243-LJO -SMS Document 41 Filed 07/29/10 Page 5 of 12
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

precautions to prevent waterfrom entering pipes during inspections (Id. at 83-84, 125); and maintenance

to prevent tripping hazards (Id. at 14).

The government requires additional safeguards for government employees when those employees

are engaged in activities at Dos Amigos. For example, the government requires a job hazard analysis

(Partridge Depo., p. 98). In addition, diving activities must comply with various commercial diving

standards including the Bureau of Reclamation’s Diving Safe Practice’s Manual and the Reclamation

Safety and Health Standards. Pl. R.J.N., Ex. 3. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The government contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). In considering a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the

plaintiff, as the party seeking to invoke the court’s jurisdiction, always bears the burden of establishing

subject matter jurisdiction. Tosco Corp. v. Communities for Better Environment, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th

Cir. 2001). The court presumes a lack of subject matter jurisdiction until the plaintiff proves otherwise. 

See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 1675 (1994).

The court must also consider whether the motion to dismiss is “facial, confining the inquiry to

allegations in the complaint, or factual, permitting the court to look beyond the complaint.” Savage v.

Glendale Union High School, 343 F. 3d 1036, 1039-40 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003); see also, White v. Lee, 227

F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000). In the facial attack, a party challenges subject matter jurisdiction by

asserting that the allegations in the complaint are insufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction.

Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). In a factual challenge, the truth

ofthe allegations, which would otherwise invoke subject matter jurisdiction, is challenged and this Court

“is not restricted to the face of the pleadings, but may review any evidence, such as affidavits and

testimony, to resolve factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction.” McCarthy v. U.S., 850

F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir. 1988). 

The government presents a factual challenge. Therefore, “[o]nce the moving partyhas converted

the motion to dismiss into a factual motion by presenting affidavits or other evidence properly brought

before the court, the party opposing the motion must furnish affidavits or other evidence necessary to

satisfy its burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction.” Savage, 343 F.3d at 1039-40 n.2.

6

Case 1:09-cv-00243-LJO -SMS Document 41 Filed 07/29/10 Page 6 of 12
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

DISCUSSION

Introduction

“[T]he United States may not be sued without its consent and [] the existence of such consent

is a prerequisite to jurisdiction.” United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 211 (1983). Evidence of the

government’s consent must be unequivocal and may not be implied. Blue v. Widnall, 162 F.3d 541, 544

(9th Cir. 1998). The government’s consent to suit defines the jurisdiction of the court to hear an action

against the federal government. Baker v. United States, 817 F.2d 560, 562 (9th Cir. 1987). The party

asserting jurisdiction has the burden to establish all jurisdictional facts. Indust. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero

Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990).

Plaintiffs assert that jurisdiction is proper under the FTCA. The FTCA is a “limited waiver of

sovereign immunity, making the Federal Government liable to the same extent as a private party for

certain torts of federal employees acting within the scope of their employment.” United States v.

Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 813 (1976). “The language of 28 U.S.C. s 1346(b) is unambiguous, covering

injuries ‘caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while

acting within the scope of his office or employment ....’” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. §1346(b)). The FTCA

defines the term “employee of the Government” to include “officers and employees of any Federal

agency.” 28 U.S.C. §2671. The definition of “employee” specifically excludes “any contractor with the

United States.” Id. This exclusion is known as the independent contractor exception to the FTCA.

Vicarious Liability Claims

The government argues that the independent contractor exception bars this action. The

government’s position rests on the premise that Plaintiffs’ negligence claims assert vicarious liability

against the government for the negligent acts of State employees. The government points out that under

the 1961 Agreement and 1972 Supplement, the government transferred the care, operation, and

maintenance of Dos Amigos to the State to argue that all claims against the government must be

vicarious.

Under the FTCA, the negligence of a contractor cannot be imputed to the government absent a

showing that the government controlled and supervised the “detailed physical performance” and “day-today operations” of the contractor. Autery v. United States, 425 F.3d 944, 956 (9th Cir. 2005). Moreover,

7

Case 1:09-cv-00243-LJO -SMS Document 41 Filed 07/29/10 Page 7 of 12
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

“[c]ontractual provisions directing detailed performance generally do not abrogate the contractor

exception.” Id. at 957. Neither do detailed regulations and inspections, the ability to compel compliance

with federal regulations, or the contractor’s responsibility for maintaining property owned by the United

States. Id.; see also, Letnes v. United States, 820 F.3d 1517, 1519 (9th Cir. 1987); Borquez v. United

States, 773 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1985).

The independent contractor exception bars vicarious liability claims against the government. 

Plaintiffs do not oppose this rule of law, but argue that it is inapplicable. Plaintiffs contend that they

assert direct liability claims against the government for the alleged negligent acts or omissions of federal

employees, and do not assert vicarious liability claims against the government for the negligent acts of

State employees. Based on Plaintiffs’ contention, this Court must view Plaintiffs’ complaint as asserting

direct liability claims against the government only, and determine the adequacy of the pleading from that

position.

Direct Negligence Claims

Next, the Court considers Plaintiffs’ direct negligence claims against the government. The Court 3

considers whether Plaintiffs state a claim pursuant to the standards of review applicable under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In considering whether Plaintiffs have stated a claim, the Court considers as true the

allegations of the complaint, as well as the judicially-noticeable agreements between the government and

the State, construes the pleading in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and

resolves all doubts in the pleader's favor. Lazy Y. Ranch LTD v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 588 (9th Cir.

2008). To survive Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) scrutiny, “a complaint . . . must contain either direct or

inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain recovery under some

viable legal theory.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 52, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1969 (2007).

As set forth above, the government is liable for claims brought under the FTCA to the extent a

private party would be liable under similar circumstances. 28 U.S.C. §1346(b). The law of the state

where the act or omission occurred determine whether an actionable duty exists under the FTCA.

Henderson v. United States, 846 F.3d 1233, 1234 (9th Cir. 1988). UnderCalifornia law, the government

The government’s motion and reply largely ignore Plaintiffs’ direct liability claims, and rely almost entirely on

3

vicarious liability law.

8

Case 1:09-cv-00243-LJO -SMS Document 41 Filed 07/29/10 Page 8 of 12
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

may be held liable for the government’s negligent acts that proximately caused plaintiffs’ damages.

Oakley v. United States, 622 F.2d 447, 449 (9th Cir. 1980).

Plaintiffs allege that the government, though its management and inspections or lack thereof,

created a dangerous condition for divers at Dos Amigos. Plaintiffs fault the government for failing to:

ensure strict compliance with safe work and diving standards; ensure compliance with commercial

diving standards; require the Dos Amigos facility to comply with the government’s Reclamation Safety

and Health Standards and Underwater Diving Safety requirements; provide and ensure proper diving

equipment and safe procedures at Dos Amigos; maintain equipment that was designed to eliminate or

reduce hazards to divers; establish and implement an effective injury prevention program; establish safe

procedures, including a shut-down system; inspect adequately to discover unsafe conditions; maintain

premises at Dos Amigos in a safe condition. In their premises liability claim, Plaintiffs allege that the

government knew or should have known, in the course of its regular inspections, that the Dos Amigos

facilities were poorly maintained, the design was hazardous and created an unreasonable risk of injury

or death to divers, appropriate safety procedures were not been utilized, and the equipment was unsafe.

The parties do not dispute the relevant facts: The government transferred operation and

maintenance of Dos Amigos to the State pursuant to the 1961 Agreement and 1972 Supplement. The

government did not control or supervise the day-to-day operations at Dos Amigos. To the contrary, dayto-dayoperations and maintenance of the facilitywas delegated to the State through the agreements. The

State was operating the pumps and conducting maintenance at the time of the incident. No government

employee was present at the time of the incident. Mr. Alvarado was employed by the State as part of

a dive team, diving at Dos Amigos was for the purpose of “proper operation,” inspection and

maintenance of the facility, and he died while performing an inspection at Dos Amigos. Moreover, by

agreement between the government and the State, the State is responsible to undertake emergency

response. Under these facts, Plaintiffs cannot state direct liability claims against the government.

In their complaint, as in opposition to this motion, Plaintiffs fail to establish that the government

had an actionable duty to inspect or maintain Dos Amigos. On the contrary, through the 1961

Agreement and 1972 Supplement, the government delegated its duties to operate and maintain Dos

Amigos to the State. Those duties were delegated to the State upon the conveyance in 1968. Dos

9

Case 1:09-cv-00243-LJO -SMS Document 41 Filed 07/29/10 Page 9 of 12
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

Amigos was transferred to the State “as a complete unit.” Once transferred, the State was required to

“undertake property and maintenance and replacements on the joint use facilities which are determined

by either party to be necessary.” By contractual agreement, then, the government delegated operational

and maintenance duties to the State, and is therefore not responsible for the negligent operation and

maintenance at Dos Amigos. See Autery v. United States, 424 F.3d 944, 959 (9th Cir. 2005) (even if

government as landowner had duty to maintain safe environment by maintaining fire breaks, the

contractual provisions delegating that duty precluded jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims based on

independent contractor exception to FTCA).

Plaintiffs point to no contractual provisions that create an affirmative dutyto inspect DosAmigos

or a duty of care to the Plaintiffs. The 1961 Agreement allows the government “from time to time to

make an appropriate inspection of the facilities.” Similarly, Paragraph 24 of the 1972 Supplement reads:

FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN CARE, OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT

24. The United States may, from time to time, perform or participate in the care,

operation, maintenance, and replacement of the joint-use and Federal-only

facilities, or provide special engineering and technical work in support of these

activities: Provided, That such work shall be agreed to in advance. Cost of the

work shall be subject to the appropriate provisions of Articles 34, 35, and 37.

 

Under these provisions the government had a right to inspect Dos Amigos; it had no duty to do so.

Plaintiffs seek to impose liability against the government for failure to exercise its retained

control over Dos Amigos. Under California law, however, Plaintiffs may not recover against the

government for its alleged failure to exercise retained control. In Hooker v. Dept. of Trans., 27 Cal. 4th

198, 202 (2002), the California Supreme Court concluded:

a hirer of an independent contractor is not liable to an employee of the contractor merely

because the hirer retained control over safety conditions at a worksite, but that a hirer is

liable to an employee of a contractor insofar as a hirer's exercise of retained control

affirmatively contributed to the employee's injuries. In this case, although plaintiff raised

triable issues of material fact as to whether defendant retained control over safety

conditions at the worksite, plaintiff failed to raise triable issues of material fact as to

whether defendant actuallyexercised the retained control so as to affirmativelycontribute

to the death of plaintiff's husband. Therefore, the trial court properly granted summary

judgment in favor of defendant, and the Court of Appeal erred in reversing that

judgment.

Here, as in Hooker, Plaintiffs have failed to allege that the government “actually exercised the retained

control so as to affirmatively contribute to the death of plaintiff’s husband.” Id. This rule of law applies

10

Case 1:09-cv-00243-LJO -SMS Document 41 Filed 07/29/10 Page 10 of 12
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

because the “liability of the contractor, the person primarily responsible for the worker's on-the-job

injuries, is limited to providing workers' compensation coverage, it would be unfair to impose tort

liability on the hirer of the contractor merely because the hirer retained the ability to exercise control

over safety at the worksite. In fairness...the imposition of tort liability on a hirer should depend on

whether the hirer exercised the control that was retained in a manner that affirmatively contributed to

the injury of the contractor's employee.” Hooker, 17 Cal. 4th at 210.

Thus, under California law, where the factual basis for the claim is that the hirer failed to exercise

a general supervisory power to require the contractor to correct an unsafe procedure or condition of the

contractor's own making, and there is no allegation that the hirer's conduct contributed in any way to

the contractor's negligent performance by, e.g., inducing injurious action or inaction through actual

direction, the government has no duty to Plaintiffs for merely failing to exercise a general supervisory

power to prevent the creation or continuation of a hazardous practice, or by failing to exercise retained

control. 

Plaintiffs argue that the government had non-delegable duties to undertake appropriate safety

measures at Dos Amigos. Plaintiffs rely on superceded case law, or case law outside this Court’s

jurisdiction, to support its position. Under controlling California law, a hirer may delegate to an

independent contractor the duty to provide the contractor’s employees with a safe working environment.

Tverberg Fillner Const., Inc., 49 Cal. 4th 518 *13 (2010). In opposition to the pending motion,

Plaintiffs have failed to establish that they may assert direct negligence claims against the government

as a matter of law.

Conclusion

Plaintiffs have the burden to establish that this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims. Any

claims based on the liability of the State are precluded pursuant to the independent contractor exception

to the FTCA; however, Plaintiffs contend that this argument is inapplicable because they assert no

vicarious liability claims. Based on Plaintiffs’ allegations and position, this Court agrees that the

independent contractor exception is inapplicable. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim

against the government. Plaintiffs fail to establish that the government owed an actionable duty to

Plaintiffs. Pursuant to the agreements, the government delegated its duties to operate and maintain Dos

11

Case 1:09-cv-00243-LJO -SMS Document 41 Filed 07/29/10 Page 11 of 12
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

Amigos to the State. The government is permitted to delegate these duties under federal and state law. 

In addition, Plaintiffs allege that the government failed to exercise its retained control over Dos Amigos,

but fail to allege that the government exercised that control affirmatively to contribute to the negligent

death of Mr. Alvarado. Under these facts and California law, Plaintiffs fail to establish an actionable

duty against the government. Accordingly, this Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ complaint.

Leave to Amend

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), this Court generally gives leave to amend “freely” and “when

justice so requires,” even if the plaintiff fails to request leave to amend. This Court may, in its discretion,

deny leave to amend when amendment of the claims would be futile. Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music

Publ'g, 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir.2008). In this action, the Court finds that leave to amend is not futile. 

In opposition, Plaintiffs suggest that evidence is being developed that Mr. Alvarado’s dive was at the

direction of the government to search for quagga mussels. While this evidence contradicts Plaintiffs’

allegations that Mr. Alvarado’s dive was for the care and maintenance of Dos Amigos, if pled properly

based on the alleged facts that Plaintiffs have good reason to believe exist, it could change the rules of

law that apply to this case. Accordingly, this Court grants Plaintiffs leave to amend.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, this Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs complaint with leave to amend. 

Plaintiffs must file an amended complaint no later than August 18, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12

Case 1:09-cv-00243-LJO -SMS Document 41 Filed 07/29/10 Page 12 of 12