Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01016/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01016-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Property Damage

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADRIENNE THOMAS and AMBER JOSEPH,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

AIS-AUTO INSURANCE SPECIALISTS, INC.,

MERCURY INSURANCE GROUP, UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants. /

No. C 10-01016 SI

ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES’

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS

FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION; and

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:

REMAND TO SUPERIOR COURT

Defendant United States of America’s unopposed motion to dismiss is currently set for oral

argument on April 23, 2010. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter appropriate

for resolution without oral argument and hereby VACATES the hearing. Having considered the United

States’ papers, and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS the unopposed motion to dismiss

the claims against the United States. The Court also ORDERS the parties to SHOW CAUSE why this

action should not be remanded to the Contra Costa County Superior Court..

DISCUSSION

1. Claims against United States

This suit arises from the denial of plaintiffs’ claim for auto insurance coverage by their insurance

carriers, AIS-Auto Insurance Specialists, Inc. (“AIS”) and Mercury Insurance Group (“Mercury”).

Plaintiffs allege that they filed an insurance claim after they were involved in an accident in March

2008, but that AIS and Mercury denied the claim due to a lapse in plaintiffs’ insurance policy. Plaintiffs

allege that although they were told by AIS and Mercury that a renewal policy had been placed in the

Case 3:10-cv-01016-SI Document 12 Filed 04/14/10 Page 1 of 3
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

1

 Upon removal, the United States was automatically substituted as defendant in place of the

Postal Service and Fernandez, and the action must proceed “subject to the limitations and exceptions

applicable” in suits against the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2), (d)(4).

2

mail, they never received the renewal, which was ultimately returned to AIS and Mercury’s offices.

On February 8, 2010, plaintiffs filed a claim in the Small Claims Division of the Contra Costa County

Superior Court against AIS and Mercury as well as the United States Postal Service and Postal Manager

Alex Fernandez. The United States removed the action to this Court on March 10, 2010.1

 

Presently before the Court is the United States’ unopposed motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims

against it on the ground the claims are barred by the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). The FTCA

constitutes the United States’ exclusive waiver of sovereign immunity for tort actions. Marley v. United

States, 567 F.3d 1030, 1034 (9th Cir. 2009). Section 2680 of the FTCA expressly states that the United

States has not waived its immunity from suit for “[a]ny claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or

negligent transmission of letters or postal matter.” 28 U.S.C. § 2680(b). With this provision, “Congress

intended to retain immunity . . . for injuries arising, directly or consequentially, because mail either fails

to arrive at all or arrives late, in damaged condition, or at the wrong address.” Dolan v. U.S. Postal

Serv., 546 U.S. 481, 489 (2006). Plaintiffs’ claim against the United States clearly arises from the fact

that plaintiffs’ renewal policy never arrived in the mail. The Court agrees with the United States that

this claim is barred by the FTCA. 

The unopposed motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims against the United States with prejudice is

therefore GRANTED, and the United States is DISMISSED from this action. (Docket No. 7). 

///

Case 3:10-cv-01016-SI Document 12 Filed 04/14/10 Page 2 of 3
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

2. Order to Show Cause re: Remand

As a result of the United States’ dismissal from this action, it appears that there is no longer a

basis for federal jurisdiction over this matter. Accordingly, the parties are hereby ordered to show cause

in writing, to be filed no later than April 23, 2010, why this action should not be remanded to the Small

Claims Division of the Contra Costa County Superior Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01016-SI Document 12 Filed 04/14/10 Page 3 of 3