Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01163/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01163-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Lodi
Cross Claimant
Judy Munshower
Plaintiff
United States Postal Service
Cross Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUDY MUNSHOWER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF LODI and DOES 1-20,

Defendants.

CITY OF LODI,

Cross-Claimant,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

and DOES 1-20,

CrossDefendants.

No. 2:16-cv-01163-JAM-EFB

ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES 

POSTAL SERVICE’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS

This case arises from a tort suit originally filed in state 

court by Judy Munshower against cross-claimant the City of Lodi 

(“Lodi”). Munshower Compl., ECF No. 4. In response, Lodi filed 

in state court a cross-complaint against the United States Postal 

Service (“USPS”) and twenty unnamed federal employees (“DOE 

Case 2:16-cv-01163-JAM-EFB Document 23 Filed 11/22/16 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

2

defendants”). Cross-Compl., ECF No. 4. USPS removed the case, 

ECF No. 1, and then moved to dismiss Lodi’s cross-complaint for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 13. Lodi opposes

the motion. ECF No. 16.1

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In deciding this motion, the Court takes as true all wellpleaded facts in Lodi’s cross-complaint.

This case originated in San Joaquin County Superior Court. 

While walking on the sidewalk near the federal Post Office in 

Lodi, Munshower slipped on loose and unsecured paving stones and 

broke her hip. Munshower Compl. at 9. She brought a personal 

injury suit against Lodi and twenty DOE defendants for premises 

liability. Id.

Lodi sued USPS and the DOE defendants (collectively, 

“cross-defendants”) for several tort claims falling under the 

Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). Cross-Compl. at 34-36. Lodi 

alleged that water from a broken water line at the federal Post 

Office and USPS’s heavy vehicles damaged the sidewalk upon which 

Munshower fell. Id. at 36. Lodi seeks contribution and 

indemnity from cross-defendants for their proportionate share of 

Munshower’s injuries. Id. at 34-36. Lodi also seeks declaratory

relief. Id. 

Two days after filing its cross-complaint in state court, 

Lodi filed its administrative tort claim with USPS, but USPS 

 

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 

scheduled for October 18, 2016.

Case 2:16-cv-01163-JAM-EFB Document 23 Filed 11/22/16 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

3

denied it. Mot. at 2. USPS then removed the case under 28 

U.S.C. § 1442. USPS now moves to dismiss Lodi’s cross-complaint.

II. OPINION

A. Derivative Jurisdiction Doctrine

In cases removed under § 1442, the federal court’s 

jurisdiction is derivative of the state court’s jurisdiction: 

If the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction or 

jurisdiction over the parties, then the federal court acquires 

none. See Cox v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 800 F.3d 1031, 

1032 (9th Cir. 2015); In re Elko Cty. Grand Jury, 109 F.3d 554, 

555 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal citations omitted). 

B. Analysis

 USPS contends that the state court lacked jurisdiction 

over Lodi’s claims and over USPS. Mot. at 1, 6. Specifically, 

USPS argues that the state court lacked jurisdiction over Lodi’s 

claims because state courts cannot adjudicate tort claims 

against federal agencies. Mot. at 1. USPS also argues that the 

state court lacked jurisdiction over it because no applicable 

sovereign immunity waiver allows suits against USPS in state 

court, and, given the DOE defendants, the government cannot 

substitute in the United States under the Westfall Act. Mot. at 

1, 6. Lodi maintains that the derivative jurisdiction doctrine

does not apply to the DOE defendants because the state court had 

jurisdiction over these unnamed federal employees, and the 

United States inadvertently conceded jurisdiction over these 

employees upon removal. Opp. at 5-8.

The Court finds that the derivative jurisdiction doctrine 

Case 2:16-cv-01163-JAM-EFB Document 23 Filed 11/22/16 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

4

applies here. Cases removed under § 1442 trigger this doctrine, 

and USPS removed this case under that statute. ECF No. 1. 

Lodi’s distinction—that the rule does not apply to the DOE 

defendants—is a distinction that does not make a difference. If

a defendant removes a case under § 1442, then the derivative 

jurisdiction doctrine applies. See Elko, 109 F.3d at 555

(“Initially we note that because the case was removed from state 

court pursuant to § 1442, our jurisdiction is derivative of the 

state court’s jurisdiction.”).

Having found that the derivative jurisdiction doctrine 

applies, this Court now addresses whether the state court had 

jurisdiction over Lodi’s tort claims, over USPS, or over the DOE 

defendants. If the state court lacked jurisdiction over Lodi’s 

tort claims or over either cross-defendant, then this Court 

never acquired jurisdiction and must dismiss Lodi’s crosscomplaint. See Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. 

Co., 258 U.S. 377, 382 (1922) (“If the state court lacks 

jurisdiction of the subject-matter or of the parties, the 

federal court acquires none.”) (emphasis added). 

1. Lodi’s Tort Claims

The state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over 

Lodi’s tort claims because district courts have exclusive 

jurisdiction of FTCA suits. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) (“[T]he 

district courts...shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil 

actions on claims against the United States...for injury or loss 

of property, or personal injury...caused by the negligent or 

wrongful act or omission of any [federal] employee...while 

Case 2:16-cv-01163-JAM-EFB Document 23 Filed 11/22/16 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

5

acting within the scope of his office or employment, under 

circumstances where the United States, if a private person, 

would be liable to the claimant....”). Indeed, Lodi 

“understands that the District Court has original jurisdiction 

over civil actions against the United States,” but still filed 

its cross-complaint in state court “in the interests of judicial 

economy.” Cross-Compl. at 35. 

Judicial-economy interests do not trump clear 

jurisdictional rules. Because the state court never had 

jurisdiction to hear Lodi’s tort claims, under the derivative 

jurisdiction doctrine, this Court lacks jurisdiction as well. 

See Elko, 109 F.3d at 555 (dismissing case under derivative 

jurisdiction doctrine because state court lacked jurisdiction to 

issue subpoena). This ground alone warrants dismissal. 

A district court may dismiss a complaint with prejudice 

“only when it is clear that no amendment could cure a defect in 

the complaint.” See City of Oakland v. Hotels.com LP, 572 F.3d 

958, 962 (9th Cir. 2009). Lodi cannot cure the state court’s 

lack of jurisdiction to hear Lodi’s tort claims because 

§ 1346(b)(1) grants district courts exclusive jurisdiction to 

adjudicate FTCA claims. Lodi’s cross-complaint is, therefore, 

dismissed with prejudice. 

Finally, because the state court’s lack of jurisdiction 

over Lodi’s tort claims triggers dismissal, the Court need not 

address Lodi’s remaining argument that the state court had 

jurisdiction over the DOE defendants. See Lambert Run Coal Co., 

258 U.S. at 382 (1922) (“If the state court lacks jurisdiction 

of the subject-matter or of the parties, the federal court 

Case 2:16-cv-01163-JAM-EFB Document 23 Filed 11/22/16 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

6

acquires none.”) (emphasis added). 

III. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS WITH 

PREJUDICE USPS’s Motion to Dismiss Lodi’s cross-complaint and 

REMANDS the remaining Munshower complaint against Lodi to San 

Joaquin County Superior Court. The clerk of the Court is 

directed to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-01163-JAM-EFB Document 23 Filed 11/22/16 Page 6 of 6