Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02558/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02558-2/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,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-02558 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON MARCH 3, 2006 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-3(d). The

parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such authority.

The Court tentatively GRANTS Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Case 3:05-cv-02558-JSW Document 32 Filed 03/01/06 Page 1 of 2
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

The parties shall have 20 minutes each to address the following questions:

(1) Is there any authority for Defendant’s proposition that decisions regarding contract

delegation of responsibility are planning level decisions or susceptible to policy

consideration and therefore shielded from liability?

(2) Does Defendant contend that the discretionary function exception extends to the conduct

of Coast Guard Maintenance Supervisor Fred Heminger (“Heminger”)?

a. In determining whether the discretionary function exception applies to the action

of a government employee, a court must consider whether the action is a matter

of choice for the acting employee. Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531, 536

(1988). “It is the nature of the conduct, rather than the status of the actor, that

governs whether the discretionary function exception applies in a given case.” 

United States v. S.A. Empressa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig Airlines), 467 U.S. 797, 820 (1984). “[I]f the employee’s conduct cannot appropriately be

the product of judgment or choice, then there is no discretion in the conduct for

the discretionary function exception to protect.” Berkovitz, 486 U.S. at 536. If

Heminger lacked authority by contract, does that mean that Heminger’s conduct

cannot be the product of discretion? 

b. Can Plaintiff point to a statute, regulation, or policy specifically prescribing a

course of conduct for Heminger to follow? Does the Notice of Proposed

Fourteen Day Suspension issued by Defendant to Heminger following the

incident serve as evidence of such a mandatory policy? 

c. Even if Heminger’s conduct was discretionary, the Court must also determine

whether his decisions were the product of a policy judgment. “There must be

reasonable support in the record for a court to find, without imposing its own

conjecture, that a decision was policy-based or susceptible to policy analysis.” 

Marlys Bear Med. v. United States, 241 F.3d 1208, 1216 (9th Cir. 2001). What

evidence does Defendant have that Heminger’s conduct was policy-based or

susceptible to policy analysis?

 (3) Is there anything further the parties wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02558-JSW Document 32 Filed 03/01/06 Page 2 of 2