Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-03969/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-03969-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lester and Kathleen Pearce, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

United States of America, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3969-PCT-ECV

ORDER

Pending before the court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #9), filed on March

7, 2006. Defendant seeks dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs filed a Response

to Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #11) on April 4, 2006, after which Defendant filed a Reply (Doc.

#12) on April 18.

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint (Doc. #1) on December 6, 2005, in which they allege

liability against the United States Department of the Interior under the Federal Tort Claims

Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2671. Plaintiffs allege that in June 2002, their property was

substantially damaged by the "Rodeo Fire." They allege that Defendant undertook the

responsibility to fight the fire but performed their firefighting duties negligently. Defendant

argues in its motion that it retains sovereign immunity against Plaintiffs' claims because its

firefighting activities involved the performance of discretionary functions. Plaintiffs argue

Case 3:05-cv-03969-ECV Document 13 Filed 05/02/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

in response that Defendant has presented no facts for the court to conclude that the

discretionary function exception applies here.

The FTCA provides a waiver of the government's sovereign immunity for torts

committed by government employees while acting within the scope of their employment.

28 U.S.C. § 1346(b); Kelly v. United States, 241 F.3d 755, 759 (9th Cir. 2001). In such cases,

the government may be held liable for negligence to the same extent as a private person

under similar circumstances. Id. The FTCA's waiver of immunity, however, is limited by

several exceptions, one of which is the "discretionary function" exception. Kelly, 241 F.3d

at 759-60; Marlys Bear Medicine, 241 F.3d 1208, 1213 (9th Cir. 2001). Under this exception,

the government is not liable for claims

based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform

a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee

of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused. 

28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). In cases where the discretionary function exception applies, the court

lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Kelly, 241 F.3d at 760.

In Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531, 536 (1988), the Supreme Court

established a two part test to determine whether the discretionary function exception applies.

First, the court must examine the nature of the challenged conduct and "consider whether the

action is a matter of choice for the acting employee." Id. "Thus, the discretionary function

exception will not apply when a federal statute, regulation, or policy specifically prescribes

a course of action for an employee to follow." Id. Second, "assuming the challenged

conduct involves an element of judgment, a court must determine whether that judgment is

of the kind that the discretionary function exception was designed to shield." Id. This

element reflects one of the purposes of the discretionary function exception, which is to

prevent judicial "second-guessing" of governmental decisions based on political, social and

economic judgments. Id. "Whether a challenged action falls within the discretionary

function exception requires a particularized analysis of the specific agency action

challenged." Kelly, 241 F.3d at 760. The government bears the burden of proving the

Case 3:05-cv-03969-ECV Document 13 Filed 05/02/06 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

applicability of the discretionary function exception. Marlys Bear Medicine, 241 F.3d at

1213.

Here, Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that Defendant acted negligently when

fighting the Rodeo Fire. For example, they allege that Defendant, "in the process of 'back

burning' to slow the advancement of the Rodeo Fire, failed to exercise reasonable care in the

implementation of fire fighting techniques." Doc. #1 at 2. They further allege that agents

of Defendant "engaged in actions that caused or precipitated the causes of the Rodeo Fire...,"

and that Defendant "failed to use reasonable care in the performance of implementing fire

safety measures and fire fighting techniques." Id. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that

Defendant improperly interfered with local firefighting authorities and failed to adequately

train the individuals entrusted to carry out Defendant's policies. Id. at 2-3.

The court finds that Defendant's motion fails to demonstrate the applicability of the

discretionary function exception. Defendant has not established through a particularized

analysis of the agency's actions that such actions fall within the discretionary function

exception. Admittedly, Plaintiffs allegations are vague and do not permit a particularized

analysis of the facts. However, the allegations appear to challenge at least some actions that

do not involve the exercise or performance of discretionary functions. By challenging

Defendant's implementation of fire safety measures and firefighting techniques, Plaintiffs

suggest that prescribed firefighting policies and procedures were not followed. Such actions

would not be covered by the discretionary function exception. 

In reviewing a facial challenge to subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court must take the allegations in the complaint as

true. Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004). Because Defendant has failed

to show that Plaintiff's allegations fall within the discretionary function exception, the motion

to dismiss will be denied.

///

///

Case 3:05-cv-03969-ECV Document 13 Filed 05/02/06 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

That Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #9) is denied. 

DATED this 1st day of May, 2006.

Case 3:05-cv-03969-ECV Document 13 Filed 05/02/06 Page 4 of 4