Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00078/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00078-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tina Alvarez
Plaintiff
John Jarrett
Plaintiff
United States of America
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Jarrett; Tina Alvarez, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

United States of America, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-00078-TUC-DCB(CRP)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss\Motion for More Definite

Statement. (Docket #7). For the reasons stated below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that

the District Judge grant the motion in part.

 The Magistrate Judge has authority to issue a Report and Recommendation on this

case in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and LRCiv 53.1 and 53.2.

Procedural History

Plaintiffs filed a complaint on February 01, 2005, pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims

Act. (Docket #1). On April 13, 2005, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. (Docket #7).

Defendant's motion seeks to dismiss Tina Alvarez as a Plaintiff for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Defendant also seeks to dismiss counts/paragraphs three and four of the

complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) or in the alternative to require Plaintiffs to

provide a more definite statement. Plaintiffs filed a response to Defendant's motion. (Docket

Case 4:05-cv-00078-DCB-CRP Document 9 Filed 01/27/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

#8). In their response, Plaintiffs argue that Plaintiff Alvarez should not be dismissed because

she was identified on Plaintiff Jarrett's claim as his wife and Defendant could have assumed

that Alvarez would make a claim for loss of consortium. Plaintiffs further argue that whether

or not Alvarez made a claim is irrelevant because the government would have denied the

claim. Plaintiffs also argue that paragraphs three and four are meant to be read in connection

with the other six paragraphs and in context inform Defendant of allegations sufficient for

Defendant to formulate an answer. 

Standard of Review

A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) may

attack either the allegations of the complaint as insufficient to confer upon the court subject

matter jurisdiction, or the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact. Thornhill Publ'g

Co., Inc. v. General Tel. & Elecs. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir.1979). When the motion

to dismiss attacks the allegations of the complaint as insufficient to confer subject matter

jurisdiction, all allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most

favorable to the nonmoving party. Federation of African Amer. Contractors v. City of

Oakland, 96 F.3d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir.1996). When the motion to dismiss is a factual attack

on subject matter jurisdiction, however, no presumptive truthfulness attaches to the plaintiff's

allegations, and the existence of disputed material facts will not preclude the trial court from

evaluating for itself the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact. Thornhill, 594 F.2d

at 733.

Plaintiff has the burden of proving that jurisdiction does in fact exist. Thornhill, 594

F.2d at 733. Conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to

defeat a motion to dismiss. Rosenbaum v. Syntex Corp., 95 F.3d 922, 926 (9th Cir.1996).

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits dismissal for "failure

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." In these instances, review is limited to the

contents of the complaint. Campanelli v. Bockrath, 100 F.3d 1476, 1479 (9th Cir.1996). A

motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6) may also be granted if an affirmative defense or other bar

to relief is apparent from the face of the complaint, such as absolute immunity or the statute

Case 4:05-cv-00078-DCB-CRP Document 9 Filed 01/27/06 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

of limitations. 2A J. Moore, W. Taggart & J. Wicker, Moore's Federal Practice, ¶ 12.07 at

12-68 to 12-69 (2d ed. 1991 & Supp. 1191-92) citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96

S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976).

Discussion

Dismissal of Plaintiff Alvarez

Defendant argues that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff Tina

Alvarez's claim for loss of consortium because she failed to exhaust administrative remedies

as required by the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Federal Law, 28 U.S.C. § 1346, provides that the United States District Court shall

have jurisdiction over claims against the United States for money damages for injury, loss

of property, personal injury or death caused by negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of

employees acting within their scope of employment for the Government. However, 28

U.S.C. § 2675 provides that an action shall not begin "unless claimant shall have first

presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall have been finally

denied by the agency in writing..."

In the present case, a claim was filed by Plaintiff Jarrett on May 07, 2004, alleging

that Jarrett was injured when he tripped over a concrete step at the Federal Correctional

Institute in Safford, Arizona. (Defendant Motion, Exhibit B). The claim asserts a personal

injury claim for $100,000. (Id.) Plaintiff Alvarez appears on the claim under box 6, "name

and address of spouse, if any." (Id.) Neither Alvarez nor her claim for loss of consortium

appear anywhere else on the claim. Plaintiffs admit in their response that Alvarez did not

submit an administrative claim. (Plaintiff Response, p.2).

The statute and case law are clear, the district court does not have jurisdiction over a

tort claim against the Government until the claimant first exhausts administrative procedures.

McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113, 113 S.Ct. 1980, 1984 (1993); Jerves v. United

States, 966 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir.1992) citing Caton v. United States, 495 F.2d 635, (9th

Cir.1974); Burns v. United States, 764 F.2d 722 (9th Cir.1984); Johnson v. United States, 704

F.2d 1431, 1442 (9th Cir.1983). Johnson specifically addresses a loss of consortium claim

Case 4:05-cv-00078-DCB-CRP Document 9 Filed 01/27/06 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

made by a spouse. In that case, as in this one, the wife was identified on the claim of the

husband as his spouse, but there was no mention of her claim of loss of consortium and she

did not sign the claim. Johnson at 1431. The Court concluded that failure of the wife to

exhaust the administrative procedures for her loss of consortium claim precluded the Court

from jurisdiction over her claim. Id. The case at hand consists of identical facts and, as such,

this Court does not have jurisdiction over Alvarez's claim for loss of consortium. 

Plaintiffs assert that Alvarez's failure to follow the administrative procedures is

irrelevant to the determination of the claim and that had she followed them the outcome

would have been identical. However, the Court has also held that filing of a claim in district

court after submission of a claim to the administrative agency, but prior to the issuing of

official letter denying the claim, divests the Court of jurisdiction. McNeil, 508 U.S. 106;

Jerves, 966 F.2d 517. If failure to wait for the issuance of denial of a claim divests the Court

of jurisdiction, the Court may not exercise jurisdiction based on the assertion that had the

claim been filed, it would have been denied. Thus, the Magistrate Judge recommends that

the District Judge grant Defendant's motion to dismiss Tina Alvarez.

Dismissal of Paragraphs Three and Four

Defendant moves for dismissal of, or in the alternative for a more definite statement

of, paragraphs three and four of the complaint. Defendant argues that paragraphs three and

four fail to state a claim. Defendant further argues that these paragraphs make conclusory

allegations without facts connecting the allegations to the harm suffered by Plaintiffs. 

Plaintiffs argue that paragraphs three and four are meant to be read in the context of

the other paragraphs of the complaint. It is Plaintiffs position that all the paragraphs build

upon each other to form Plaintiffs' claims. 

A complaint will not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond

doubt that the plaintiff will be unable to prove any facts to support it. Conley v. Gibson, 355

U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102 (1957); Whitmore v. Arizona, 298 F.3d 1134, 1136 (9th

Cir.2002) citing Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir.1993). A motion for

Case 4:05-cv-00078-DCB-CRP Document 9 Filed 01/27/06 Page 4 of 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

- 5 -

a more definite statement will be granted if a complaint does not properly notify defendant

of the allegations charged. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1175 (9th Cir.1996).

This Court does not find sufficient lack of facts to justify dismissal of paragraphs three

and four; nor does the Court find it necessary to require a more definite statement by

Plaintiffs. Paragraph three incorporates the facts of the other paragraphs in the complaint by

stating "at all times material to this complaint" and paragraphs five, six, and seven draw the

link between the harms alleged by Plaintiffs and the negligence alleged in the other

paragraphs of the complaint, including paragraphs three and four. The complaint as alleged

is sufficient for Defendant to answer. As such, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the

District Judge deny Defendants motion to dismiss paragraphs three and four as well as the

alternative to require a more definite statement.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Judge

after independent review, grant Defendant's motion to dismiss Tina Alvarez and deny

Defendant's motion to dismiss paragraphs three and four.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the parties have ten days to file written

objections to these findings and recommendation with the Clerk of the District Court. If the

objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. If objections are filed, the

parties should use the following case number: CV 05-00078-DCB. 

The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this Report and Recommendation

to all parties.

DATED this 26th day of January, 2006.

Case 4:05-cv-00078-DCB-CRP Document 9 Filed 01/27/06 Page 5 of 5