Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03988/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03988-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lydia Pacheco
Plaintiff
United States Postal Service
Defendant

Document Text:

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

LYDIA PACHECO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

US POSTAL SERVICE,

Defendant. /

No. C-07-03988 EDL

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

On June 22, 2007, Plaintiff Lydia Pacheco filed a case in small claims court against the

United States Postal Service. Defendant removed the case to this Court on August 2, 2007. 

According to the small claims action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant owes her $7,500 for: “Lost

mail for 8 months made us default on taxes in Marion, FL resulting in out of pocket expence [sic].” 

See Notice of Removal, Ex. A at 2. On December 13, 2007, Defendant filed this motion to dismiss,

arguing that: (1) Defendant is entitled to immunity for claims of lost mail; (2) Plaintiff has failed to

allege compliance with the administrative claim requirement; and (3) Plaintiff failed to name proper

Defendant. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion. Because this matter is appropriate for

decision without oral argument, the Court vacated the January 30, 2008 hearing. 

Defendant filed this motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing

that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The plaintiff

bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction, and a court must presume lack of

jurisdiction until the plaintiff establishes otherwise. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of

America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Where, as here, a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the

jurisdictional allegations in the Complaint, the same standards apply to a Rule 12(b)(1) motion as

apply to a motion under Rule 12(b)(6). For purposes of evaluating a motion to dismiss under Rule

Case 3:07-cv-03988-EDL Document 24 Filed 01/29/08 Page 1 of 2
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

2

12(b)(6), the complaint is construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff and its allegations are

taken as true. See Abramson v. Brownstein, 897 F.2d 389, 391 (9th Cir. 1990). A complaint should

not be dismissed “unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46

(1957); see also Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995). 

The Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) provides the exclusive remedy for actions arising out

of the alleged negligent act or omission of any employee of any federal agency, including the Postal

Service. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b); Sportique Fashions, Inc. v. Sullivan, 597 F.2d 664, 665, n. 2 (9th

Cir. 1979). While the FTCA waives sovereign immunity in some cases, the Act specifically states

that it “shall not apply to any claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage or negligent transmission of

postal matter.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(b); Dolan v. US Postal Service, 546 U.S. 481, 489 (2006)

(“We think it more likely that Congress intended to retain immunity, as a general rule, only 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.”); Anderson v. United States Postal Service, 761 F.2d

527, 528 (9th Cir. 1985) (“However, by 28 U.S.C. § 2680(b) the United States retains sovereign

immunity for tort claims against it for ‘loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission’ of the mails.”).

Plaintiff’s action seeks damages allegedly caused by lost mail. That claim is squarely within

the immunity of § 2680(b). Accordingly, this Court is without jurisdiction in this matter and

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted with prejudice. Because this matter is dismissed based on

§ 2860(b), the Court need not reach the remaining issues raised by Defendant in its motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2008 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03988-EDL Document 24 Filed 01/29/08 Page 2 of 2