Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01489/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01489-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:2674 Federal Tort Claims Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, a

Maryland corporation as subrogee of J & A

JEFFREY INC., a California corporation dba

WESTERN STABILIZATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and DOES

1-10, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-01489 JSW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR JUDGMENT ON THE

PLEADINGS AND DISMISSING

COMPLAINT WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

Now before the Court is Defendant United States of America’s motion for judgment on

the pleadings. The Court finds the present motion appropriate for decision without oral

argument and hereby VACATES the hearing set for June 3, 2005. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). 

Having carefully reviewed the parties’ papers, considered their arguments and the relevant legal

authority, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s motion for

judgment on the pleadings, and DISMISSES the complaint without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Maryland Casualty Company is the subrogee of J & A Jeffrey Inc. (“J & A”)

and, as subrogee, demanded the $170,000 they paid to J & A for damage to a soil pulverizer. 

The pulverizer was destroyed when it hit an underground utility line on May 30, 2003, at the

Coast Guard Training Center in Petaluma, California. 

Case 3:04-cv-01489-JSW Document 45 Filed 05/25/05 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

On October 21, 2003, Plaintiff submitted a Standard Form 95, Claim for Damage,

Injury, or Death (“SF 95”) to the United States Coast Guard demanding full payment of its

claim for property damage in the amount of $170,000. (Declaration of Robert Bruce (“Bruce

Decl.”), Ex. 1.) On December 4, 2003, Lieutenant Commander Kevin F. Bruen sent a letter to

Plaintiff’s counsel informing him that the prime contractor for the construction project,

Agbayani Construction Corporation, might be the responsible party given the terms of the

contract between Agbayani and the United States Coast Guard, but also informed Plaintiff’s

counsel that the “matter continues to be investigated.” (Id., Ex. 2.) On April 15, 2004, Plaintiff

commenced the current action. On April 23, 2004, the United States Coast Guard mailed to

plaintiff’s attorney by certified mail, return receipt requested, a notice of denial of his claim. 

(Id., Ex. 3.)

ANALYSIS

A. Federal Torts Claims Act and Jurisdiction.

The doctrine of sovereign immunity bars all claims against the United States except

where it explicitly consents to be sued. United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 (1976). The

Federal Torts Claims Act (“FTCA” or “the Act”) waives the sovereign immunity of the United

States for actions in torts and provides an exclusive remedy for persons injured by the negligent

or wrongful acts of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of their

employment. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1). The FTCA vests the federal district courts with

exclusive jurisdiction over suits arising from the negligence of Government employees. 

However, the Act further provides that before an individual can file an action in the district

court, he must seek an administrative resolution of the claim. The relevant provision, 28 U.S.C.

§ 2675(a), reads in pertinent part:

An action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States for

money damages for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death 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, 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 and

sent by certified or registered mail. The failure of an agency to make final

disposition of a claim within six months after it is filed shall, at the option of the

claimant any time thereafter, be deemed a final denial of the claim for purposes

of this section.

Case 3:04-cv-01489-JSW Document 45 Filed 05/25/05 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The claim requirement of section 2675 is “jurisdictional in nature and may not be

waived.” Burns v. United States, 764 F.2d 722, 724 (9th Cir. 1985). If an action is commenced

prematurely, the court may not retain jurisdiction until administrative remedies are exhausted. 

Jerves v. United States, 966 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Plaintiff’s suit is premature because it was instituted this action before the administrative

claim was denied and before the expiration of the six-month waiting period following the

United States Coast Guard’s denial of the claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint is

dismissed. 

B. New Complaint is Not Time-Barred.

The United States contends that the dismissal should be with prejudice because any

subsequent action filed by Plaintiff will now be time-barred. 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) provides that

a “tort claim against the United States shall be forever barred 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.” The United States argues that the final

denial was mailed on April 23, 2004 and therefore the six-month tolling period has already

expired. 

However, the denial must include language concerning the right to bring suit in district

court and provide the claimant “‘with a clear landmark that [the] claim has been denied and that

[Section 2401(b)’s] six month clock has begun to run.’” Jerves, 966 F.2d at 520 (citing

Dyniewicz v. United States, 742 F.2d 484, 486 (9th Cir. 1984)). The final denial letter from the

United States Coast Guard dated April 23, 2004 does not comply with the requirements of 28

C.F.R. § 14.9(a), which provides that the 

[f]inal denial of an administrative claim shall be in writing and sent to the

claimant, his attorney, or legal representative by certified or registered mail.

The notification of final denial may include a statement of the reasons for the

denial and shall include a statement that, if the claimant is dissatisfied with

the agency action, he may file in an appropriate U.S. District Court not later

than 6 months after the date of mailing of the notification.

Although Plaintiff’s attorney had already filed a complaint in district court prematurely, the

denial letter does not provide sufficient notice of Plaintiff’s rights on its face. 

Case 3:04-cv-01489-JSW Document 45 Filed 05/25/05 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

In addition, Plaintiff’s SF 95 is dated October 21, 2003 and the United States Coast

Guard had six months to process proper denial of this claim, or no later than April 21, 2004. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) (failure of agency to make final disposition of a claim within six

months after it is filed shall, at the option of the claimant any time thereafter, be deemed a final

denial of the claim). The agency’s denial is dated April 23, 2004 and is therefore two days past

the required deadline. Therefore, it is questionable whether the provision requiring Plaintiff to

file a complaint not less than six months from date of the final agency denial was triggered. See

Parker v. United States, 935 F.2d 176, 177 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that the six month period of

section 2401(b) does not begin to run until the agency has notified the claimant of final denial

in accordance with section 2675(a), i.e., when the agency has made a final disposition of the

claim and notified the claimant by mail within six months of receiving the original

administrative claim). Therefore, the time limitation on Plaintiff’s filing a complaint in federal

court has not passed. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2005 /s/ Jeffrey S. White 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-01489-JSW Document 45 Filed 05/25/05 Page 4 of 4