Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02926/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02926-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Notice of Removal - Suit against Federal Officer

---

-1- 16cv2926-MMA (AGS) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AMALIA FALLORIN REYES,

Plaintiff,

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant.

Case No.: 16cv2926-MMA (AGS)

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

[Doc. No. 3]

 

 On July 25, 2016, Plaintiff Amalia Fallorin Reyes initiated a small claims action in 

the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego, naming Burt Lee1

 as the 

defendant. See Doc. No. 1. In Plaintiff’s small claims complaint, she alleges a claim for 

“harassment,” and alleges that “Mr. Lee ha[d] been avoiding us.” See Doc. No. 1-2. On 

December 1, 2016, the United States of America removed this action from the Superior 

Court based on federal question jurisdiction and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 

U.S.C. § 1346(b). See Doc. No. 1. The United States then filed a notice of substitution, 

substituting the United States as Defendant pursuant to the Federal Employees Liability 

Reform and Tort Compensation Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2679, and asserting that Burt Lee was 

                                                                

1

 The United States indicates that the true name of the individual originally sued is Burt Lee, as opposed 

to Bart Lee, as the small claims complaint lists him. See Doc. Nos. 1, 3. 

Case 3:16-cv-02926-MMA-AGS Document 5 Filed 02/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
 -2- 16cv2926-MMA (AGS) 

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

acting within the scope of his employment as a federal employee—specifically, a postal 

worker—at the time the cause of action arose. See Doc. No. 2. Now, Defendant United 

States moves to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). See Doc. No. 3. For the following reasons, the 

Court agrees that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. 

DISCUSSION

“The FTCA bars claimants from bringing suit in federal court until they have 

exhausted their administrative remedies.” See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 

113 (1993); see 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). Specifically, a tort claim “may not be instituted 

against the United States unless it is first presented to the appropriate Federal agency and 

one of the following conditions is met: the claim is finally denied, or six months have 

passed without a final resolution having been made.” See Burns v. United States, 764 

F.2d 722, 724 (9th Cir. 1985). This is a jurisdictional requirement. See Sec. Nat. Ins. Co. 

v. United States, 637 F. App’x 347, 347–48 (9th Cir. 2016); Brady v. United States, 211 

F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 2000). Further, even where a plaintiff commences litigation and 

then exhausts administrative remedies “before substantial progress [is] made in the 

litigation,” an FTCA action must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 

McNeil, 508 U.S. at 111–12. 

Here, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has not filed an administrative claim prior to 

commencing this action, as required by § 2675(a). See Doc. No. 3. Plaintiff does not 

oppose Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that 

she has exhausted her administrative remedies. Based on the record, it appears that 

Plaintiff’s complaint is premature, and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over 

this action. Lastly, amendment appears futile because Plaintiff would not be able to cure 

any failure to exhaust administrative remedies after she has already commenced this 

FTCA action. See McNeil, 508 U.S. at 111–12; see DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 

833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987) (“[F]utile amendments should not be permitted.”). 

// 

Case 3:16-cv-02926-MMA-AGS Document 5 Filed 02/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
 -3- 16cv2926-MMA (AGS) 

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

CONCLUSION

 In sum, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s unopposed motion to dismiss, and 

DISMISSES this action without prejudice, and without leave to file an amended 

complaint. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2017

 _____________________________ 

 Hon. Michael M. Anello 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-02926-MMA-AGS Document 5 Filed 02/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3