Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00140/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00140-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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 

FILED 

~AR ~~ 1011J 

CLERK, U.S. OISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN OISi HICl Of C."LIFORNIA 

BY ~_ •• _ ..~~~........ OEPUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICCAEL ALSHAIKH, et aI., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

METROPOLITAN TRANSIT, et aI., 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. l1cv140 BEN (CAB) 

ORDER GRANTING UNITED 

STATES' MOTION TO DISMISS 

AND REMANDING TO STATE 

COURT 

INTRODUCTION 

On January 24, 2011, this action was removed from state court based on the Plaintiffs naming 

a federal employee as a defendant and the assertion of a federal claim under the Federal Tort Claims 

Act. Plaintiffs' claims arise out ofinjuries Plaintiff Alshaikh suffered at a trolley station when he was 

attacked by three unknown assailants. The United States, having certified that the named federal 

defendant was acting within the scope ofhis office at the time the claim arose, now moves to dismiss. 

Defendant United States moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims because Plaintiffs failed to file the 

requisite administrative claim with the Federal Transit Administration before filing suit. Plaintiffs 

have filed an opposition to the motion. Because Plaintiffs have failed to a state a claim, the United 

States' motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of 

California, County of San Diego. 

- 1 - lIcvl40 

Case 3:11-cv-00140-BEN-CAB Document 25 Filed 03/21/11 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 

DISCUSSION 

Claimants, like Plaintiffs, cannot sue the United States without "first giv[ing] the 

appropriate federal agency the opportunity to resolve the claim." Cadwater v. United States, 45 

F.3d 297,300 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a)). "This administrative claim prerequisite 

is jurisdictional" and "must be strictly adhered to." Id. Section 2675 prohibits a claim against the 

United States for personal injury "unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to the 

appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by the agency in writing." 

Plaintiffs have not alleged that a claim was submitted to the appropriate federal agency or 

that a claim was denied in writing. Plaintiffs argue in opposition that they submitted a City of San 

Diego claim form to the Risk Management Department in compliance with California Government 

Code § 900. But, submission of a City claim form to a local entity does not meet the requirement 

for a federal claim to proceed, i.e., submit a claim "to the appropriate Federal agency" and have it 

denied in writing by that federal agency. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs' claim 

against the United States is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

Where all federal claims are dismissed in an action containing both federal and state law 

claims, a federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state 

law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Here, the federal claim and the only federal defendant are 

being dismissed. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 

remaining claims and defendants and remands the case to the Superior Court of California, County 

of San Diego, for further proceedings. 

CONCLUSION 

Defendant United States' motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Court declines to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and non-federal defendants. The 

case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, for further 

proceedings. The March 28, 2011 hearing date is vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: MarCh!', 2011 

on. T. Benitez 

United States District Court 

- 2 - llcvJ40 

Case 3:11-cv-00140-BEN-CAB Document 25 Filed 03/21/11 Page 2 of 2