Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00290/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00290-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331bc Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

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

DAVID JON MARTIN (TRUST),

Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-290-BAS(DHB)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS 

[ECF No. 29] v.

VA REGIONAL SAN DIEGO

BENEFIT OFFICE, et al.,

Defendants.

On February 12, 2015, Plaintiff David Jon Martin (Trust), proceeding pro se,

commenced this action for alleged constitutional violations and breach of contract

arising fromthe denial of pension benefits against Defendants VA Regional San Diego

Benefit Office (“VA”), Gary Chesterton, Patrick Prieb, and “Assistant Director /

Agents and / or Assigns.” Defendants now move to dismiss this action pursuant to

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Plaintiff opposes.

The Court finds this motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted

and without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). For the following reasons, the

Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

- 1 - 15cv290

Case 3:15-cv-00290-BAS-DHB Document 38 Filed 10/05/15 Page 1 of 6
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

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life

Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “They possess only that power authorized

by Constitution or a statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Id.

(internal citations omitted). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited

jurisdiction and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting

jurisdiction.” Id. (internal citations omitted); see also Abrego Abrego v. The Dow

Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006). 

“Subject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship requires that no

defendant have the same citizenship as any plaintiff.” Tosco Corp. v. Communities for

a Better Env’t, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam), abrogated on other

grounds by Hertz Corp v. Friend, 130 S. Ct. 1181 (2010). Alternatively, federal

district courts also have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “A plaintiff

suing in federal court must show in his pleading, affirmatively and distinctly, the

existence of whatever is essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if he does not do so, the

court . . . on discovering the [defect], must dismiss the case, unless the defect be

corrected by amendment.” Tosco, 236 F.3d at 499 (quoting Smith v. McCullough, 270

U.S. 456, 459 (1926)).

II. ANALYSIS

Defendants challenge this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over both claims

Plaintiff asserts in his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). With respect to Plaintiff’s

allegation that Defendants wrongfully denied his claims for pension benefits,

Defendants argue that district courts lack jurisdiction over VA benefit disputes under

Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2012) and the

Veterans’ Judicial Review Act (“VJRA”). (Defs.’ Mot. 2:15–3:12.) With respect to

the breach-of-contract claim,Defendants argue that district courtslack jurisdiction over

- 2 - 15cv290

Case 3:15-cv-00290-BAS-DHB Document 38 Filed 10/05/15 Page 2 of 6
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

contract claims against the United States pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act

(“CDA”) in conjunction with the Tucker Act and the Little Tucker Act. (Defs.’ Mot.

3:13–4:10.) Plaintiff believes Defendants are mistaken based on various theories.

A. Veterans for Common Sense and the VJRA

In Veteransfor Common Sense, the NinthCircuit examined the VJRA, 38 U.S.C.

§ 511, and concluded that “§ 511 precludes jurisdiction over a claim if it requires the

district court to review ‘VA decisions that relate to benefits decisions,’ including ‘any

decision made by the Secretary in the course of making benefits determinations.’” 

Veterans for Common Sense, 678 F.3d at 1025 (citations omitted). The court went on

to explain that “[t]his standard is consistent with Congress’s intention to ‘broaden the

scope’ of the judicial preclusion provision . . . and is reflected in § 511’s plain

statement that [federal courts] may not review ‘a decision by the Secretary under a law

that affects the provision of [veterans’] benefits[.]” Id. (citations omitted). “This

preclusion extends not only to cases where adjudicating veterans’ claims requires the

district court to determine whether the VA acted properly in handling a veteran’s

request for benefits, but also to those decisions that may affectsuch cases.” Id. “If that

test is met, then the district court must cede any claim to jurisdiction over the case, and

parties must seek a forum in the Veterans Court and the Federal Circuit.” Id. at 1026.

In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges the following:

On multiple occasionsthe Veteranmade claims for a pension

since 2007 only to be denied summarily because the United

States Department of Veteran Affairs and its agencies have

stated the Veteran’s military service was during peacetime. 

Because of these denials[,] the Veteran is stating his 5th

Amendment of the U.S. Constitution of due process, equal

protection under the law has been violated by Defendant and

loss of property, a pension, has affected his life, and liberty.

(FAC 1.) In essence, Plaintiff alleges that the VA acted improperly in denying his

pension claim. These allegations clearly demonstrate that Plaintiff seeks review of the

VA’s denial of his claimfor pension benefits, which, asstated in Veteransfor Common

Sense, is outside the scope of this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. As the Ninth

- 3 - 15cv290

Case 3:15-cv-00290-BAS-DHB Document 38 Filed 10/05/15 Page 3 of 6
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

Circuit instructed in Veterans for Common Sense, this Court must cede jurisdiction

over Plaintiff’s claim challenging the VA’s denial of pension benefits, and Plaintiff

“must seek a forum in the Veterans Court and the Federal Circuit.” Veterans for

Common Sense, 678 F.3d at 1025.

Accordingly, having also reviewed Plaintiff’s opposition, which failsto address

the impact of Veterans for Common Sense and the VJRA, the Court DISMISSES

WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s constitutional claim and any other potential

claim arising from the VA’s denial of pension benefits. See Veterans for Common

Sense, 678 F.3d at 1025.

B. The CDA and Tucker Act

The CDA applies to any express or implied contract made by an executive

agency for: (1) the procurement of property, other than real property; (2) the

procurement of services; (3) the procurement of construction, alteration, repair, or

maintenance of real property; or (4) the disposal of personal property. 41 U.S.C. §

7102 (formerly cited as 41 U.S.C. § 602). Under the CDA, claims are first submitted

in writing to the contracting officer, who must issue a decision in writing. 41 U.S.C.

§ 7103. Upon receipt of the contracting officer’s final decision, the contractor must

elect either to appeal the decision to either the appropriate board of contract appeals or

the Court of Federal Claims. Id. § 7104(a)-(b).

Under the Tucker Act, “[t]he United States Court of Federal Claims shall have

jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claimagainst the United Statesfounded either

upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive

department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States . . . in cases

not sounding in tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). The Little Tucker Act grantsthe district

court jurisdiction to hear a “claim against the United States, not exceeding $10,000 in

amount founded . . . upon any express or implied contract with the United States . . .

in cases not sounding in tort[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2). These provisions, read

- 4 - 15cv290

Case 3:15-cv-00290-BAS-DHB Document 38 Filed 10/05/15 Page 4 of 6
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

together, “create a presumption of the exclusive jurisdiction in the Court of Federal

Claims [for contract claims over $10,000], but that presumption can be overcome by

an independent statutory grant of jurisdiction to another court.” Tritz v. U.S. Postal

Serv., 721 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Suburban Mortg. Assocs., Inc. v.

U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 480 F.3d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Insofar as Plaintiff asserts a contract claim in the amount of $18,000,000, this

Court lacks jurisdiction under both the CDA and Tucker Act. See FAC 1 (“The

Veteran is also claiming that there is a contract breach by the Defendant because of

nonperformance after notification of the usurpation of these rights.”). Under both

statutes, the appropriate forum for Plaintiff’s contract claim, assuming he fulfilled his

statutory obligations, such as, for example, first submitting a claim to the contracting

officer under the CDA, is the Court of Federal Claims. See 41 U.S.C. § 7104(a)-(b);

28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). Consequently, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT

PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s contract claim.

C. Federal Torts Claim Act

The Federal Torts Claim Act (“FTCA”) waives sovereign immunity of the

United States for certain torts committed by federal employees. Fed. Deposit Ins.

Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 477 (1994) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)). The FTCA

provides that district courts have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions 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

federal government while acting within the scope of his office or employment. 28

U.S.C. § 1346(b).

The United States is the only proper defendant in a suit brought pursuant to the

FTCA. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1988); Kennedy

v. U.S. Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998). “A claim against [a federal

agency] in its own name is not a claim against the United States.” Kennedy, 145 F.3d

- 5 - 15cv290

Case 3:15-cv-00290-BAS-DHB Document 38 Filed 10/05/15 Page 5 of 6
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

at 1078. An agency is not a proper defendant under the FTCA. Craft, 157 F.3d at 706.

Furthermore, “[t]he FTCA bars claimantsfrombringing suit in federal court until

they have exhausted their administrative remedies.” McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S.

106, 113 (1993). “The timely filing of an administrative claim is a jurisdictional

prerequisite to the bringing of a suit under the FTCA, and, as such, should be

affirmatively alleged in the complaint.” Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 640 (9th

Cir. 1980).

It is unclear from the complaint whether Plaintiff is pursuing a tort claim. But

if he is, he fails to satisfy at least two requirements under the FTCA. First, Plaintiff

fails to name the United States as the defendant; instead, he names an agency and

several individuals as defendants. See Kennedy, 145 F.3d at 1078. And second,

Plaintiff fails to affirmatively allege in the FAC that he timely filed an administrative

claim with the appropriate agency. See Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 640. Therefore, insofar

as Plaintiff asserts a tort claim, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the

tort claim.

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction

over Plaintiff’s action and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action in its

entirety. See Tosco, 236 F.3d at 499. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 5, 2015

Hon. Cynthia Bashant

United States District Judge

- 6 - 15cv290

Case 3:15-cv-00290-BAS-DHB Document 38 Filed 10/05/15 Page 6 of 6