Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01169/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01169-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims Act

---

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 

LINDA ANDREINI, et al.,

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 15-01169 SC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

 Now before the Court is Defendant United States of America's 

motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Claim II for violation of 

constitutional and federally protected rights and wrongful death 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 13 ("Mot."). The motion is 

unopposed. See ECF No. 16. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), 

the Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without 

oral argument. For the forgoing reasons the Court hereby GRANTS 

Defendant's motion and dismisses Claim II of the complaint. See 

ECF No. 1 ("Compl.") at 12. 

/// 

Case 3:15-cv-01169-JD Document 18 Filed 08/03/15 Page 1 of 5
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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiffs are the surviving spouse and issue of decedent 

Edward A. Andreini. See Compl. ¶¶ 7-8. On May 4, 2014, while 

performing at an air show at Travis Air Force Base, decedent 

impacted the runway during a maneuver and died. See id. ¶¶ 1, 2, 

5-6. Plaintiffs have sued the United States, alleging this action 

arises out of the acts and omissions of Defendant’s agency, the 

United States Air Force, 60th Air Mobility Wing at Travis Air Force 

Base. See id. ¶¶ 1, 9. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to 

comply with certain regulations, directives, standards and orders 

regarding aircraft rescue and firefighting ("ARFF") services and 

thus failed to provide a timely or effective ARFF response at the 

air show. See id. ¶¶ 3-6. Plaintiffs allege these failures caused 

decedent to perish. See id. ¶ 6. 

Plaintiffs allege jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims 

Act (the "FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq. See Compl. ¶ 11. 

Plaintiffs also allege this action "raises federal questions under 

the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the 

Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Compl. ¶ 12. 

Plaintiffs assert two claims: Claim I is styled, "Wrongful Death 

Based on Negligence and/or Gross Negligence," and Claim II is 

styled, "Violation of Constitutional and Federally Protected Rights 

and Wrongful Death as Authorized Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983." See 

Compl. at 11:5, 12:17-18. In Claim II, Plaintiffs allege Defendant 

violated their and the decedent’s rights under the 14th Amendment. 

See id. ¶ 49. The instant motion asks the Court to dismiss Claim 

II for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

/// 

Case 3:15-cv-01169-JD Document 18 Filed 08/03/15 Page 2 of 5
3 

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 

P. 12(b)(1). 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

"A federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in a 

particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears." Stock 

West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 

1989). A Rule 12(b)(1) motion can attack either the sufficiency of 

the pleadings to establish federal jurisdiction or challenge the 

substance of the jurisdictional allegations despite the formal 

sufficiency of the complaint. Thornhill Publ. Co. v. Gen’l Tel. & 

Electrs. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979). When a motion 

attacks the complaint’s allegations as insufficient to confer 

subject matter jurisdiction, the factual allegations in the 

complaint are assumed to be true. See Lacano Invs., LLC v. Balash, 

765 F.3d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 2014). However, legal conclusions in 

the complaint are not accepted as true, even if they are cast as 

factual allegations. See id. 

When a defendant challenges the actual lack of jurisdiction, 

the plaintiff’s allegations are not presumed to be truthful, and 

the plaintiff has the burden of proving the court has jurisdiction. 

Thornhill Publ. Co., 594 F.2d at 733 (citation omitted). The court 

may look beyond the pleadings to decide the motion and may resolve 

factual disputes. See St. Clair v. City of Chico, 880 F.2d 199, 

201 (9th Cir. 1989). "Once the moving party has converted the 

motion to dismiss into a factual motion by presenting affidavits or 

other evidence properly brought before the court, the party 

opposing the motion must furnish affidavits or other evidence 

/// 

Case 3:15-cv-01169-JD Document 18 Filed 08/03/15 Page 3 of 5
4 

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 

necessary to satisfy its burden of establishing subject matter 

jurisdiction." Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch., Dist. No. 205, 

Maricopa Cnty., 343 F.3d 1036, 1040 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003). 

III. DISCUSSION 

"Jurisdiction over any suit against the Government requires a 

clear statement from the United States waiving sovereign immunity, 

together with a claim falling within the terms of the waiver." 

United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465, 472 

(2003) (internal citations omitted). This waiver "must be 

unequivocally expressed in statutory text and will not be implied. 

Moreover, a waiver of the Government’s sovereign immunity will be 

strictly construed, in terms of its scope, in favor of the 

sovereign." Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996) (internal 

citations omitted). Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving there 

has been "an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity." Blue v. 

Widnall, 162 F.3d 541, 544 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Plaintiffs have not met this burden. Section 1983 creates 

liability for a "person." See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 does 

not waive sovereign immunity because the United States is not a 

"person" within the meaning of the statute. See Jachetta v. United 

States, 653 F.3d 898, 908 (9th Cir. 2011); Accardi v. United 

States, 435 F.2d 1239, 1241 (3d Cir. 1970). Accordingly, Claim II 

is dismissed. See Jachetta, 653 F.3d at 908. Plaintiffs' Claim I 

for negligence under the Federal Tort Claims Act remains. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:15-cv-01169-JD Document 18 Filed 08/03/15 Page 4 of 5
5 

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 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion 

to dismiss and dismisses Claim II of the complaint. 

 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated: August 3, 2015 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:15-cv-01169-JD Document 18 Filed 08/03/15 Page 5 of 5