Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01098/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01098-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

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 * This matter was determined to be suitable for decision

without oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIM CHUN and SRY CHOU, )

) No. CIV-S-04-1098 GEB (DAD)

Plaintiffs, )

) ORDER*

v. )

) 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, )

)

Defendant. )

)

On May 27, 2005, Defendant moved for dismissal on the

grounds that it is not a proper party defendant and that service of

process has not been effected. Alternatively, Defendant moved for

summary judgment. No opposition to Defendant’s motion was filed.

Since the factual and legal assertions in Defendant’s motion 

have not been controverted, and Defendant’s specific averments

demonstrate that Plaintiffs’ lawsuit against the U.S. Postal Service

eo nomine is based on a tort, it is obvious that Plaintiffs have sued

the wrong defendant. “[T]he United States is the only proper party

defendant in [a tort] action.” Kennedy v. United States Postal Serv.,

Case 2:04-cv-01098-GEB-DAD Document 25 Filed 06/30/05 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

2

145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1988). Therefore, Defendant’s motion to

dismiss is granted and this action is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01098-GEB-DAD Document 25 Filed 06/30/05 Page 2 of 2