Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00027/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00027-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Laura Finnerty
Plaintiff
Susanna Mercado
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

LAURA FINNERTY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Defendant. /

No. C 08-0027 SI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE

UNITED STATES FOR SUSANNA

MERCADO AS PARTY DEFENDANT

AND DISMISSING FOR LACK OF

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

On February 15, 2008, the Court held a hearing on defendant’s motion to substitute the United

States for Susanna Mercado as party defendant and to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Plaintiff did not file an opposition, and did not appear at the hearing. After review of

defendant’s motion and supporting papers, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion. 

BACKGROUND

On November 16, 2007, plaintiff Laura Finnerty filed a pro se small claims complaint in the San

Francisco Superior Court seeking damages in the amount of $5,515.00 from Susanna Mercado, a letter

carrier with the U.S. Postal Service. Plaintiff’s complaint states that she was arrested, and she seeks

damages for the amount of bail ($5,000) and lost wages ($515). The complaint does not describe the

circumstances of plaintiff’s arrest. However, defendant has submitted a police report stating that

plaintiff was arrested after an incident between plaintiff and Mercado on July 16, 2007, when Mercado

was delivering mail on foot in plaintiff’s neighborhood. According to the police report, Mercado did

Case 3:08-cv-00027-SI Document 11 Filed 02/15/08 Page 1 of 3
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

not deliver mail to plaintiff’s residence because she feared that plaintiff’s dogs presented a threat to her.

See Hamtig Decl. Ex. A. The police report states that plaintiff attempted to hit Mercado with her SUV,

and yelled obscenities at her. Id. Mercado called the police, who arrived and arrested plaintiff. Id. The

incident was witnessed by a third-party bystander, who provided a signed statement to the police. Id.

The United States Attorney filed a notice of removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2) based

upon the Attorney General’s certification that Mercado was acting within the course and scope of her

employment at all times relevant to plaintiff’s claims. Notice of Removal ¶ 3; Certification Pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d) at ¶¶ 1-2. The United States now moves to substitute the United States for

Mercado as the defendant and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff did

not file an opposition.

DISCUSSION

When a federal employee is sued for a tort, the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort

Compensation Act of 1988 enables the Attorney General to certify that the employee was “acting within

the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose . . . .” 28

U.S.C. § 2679 (d)(1). Upon certification, the employee is dismissed from the suit, and the United States

is substituted as the defendant. The Attorney General has filed the required certification, and

accordingly the Court GRANTS the motion to substitute the United States for defendant Mercado. 

The Federal Tort Claims Act requires persons with tort claims against the federal government

to file a claim with the appropriate federal agency. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2675(a). “Where such a claim

is not first presented to the appropriate agency, the district court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(1), must dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Goodman v. United

States, 298 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (9th Cir. 2002). Here, plaintiff has not filed an administrative claim

regarding the incident at issue. See Murray Decl. ¶ 3. Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction over

plaintiff’s complaint, and GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS the United

Case 3:08-cv-00027-SI Document 11 Filed 02/15/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

States’ motion to substitute and for dismissal without leave to amend based on lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. (Docket No. 9).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00027-SI Document 11 Filed 02/15/08 Page 3 of 3