2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-14-2008 

# B runo v . U S P o s t al S e r P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-1647

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " B r uno v . U S P os t al S e r " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1598. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1598NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T

OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 07- 1647 E L I Z AB E T H B RU NO A ppel l ant v . THE U NI TED STATES POSTAL SERVI CE; UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

O n A pp eal F rom t he U nit ed S t at es

D istri ct C o u rt Fort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 06- cv- 04206) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n . W il li am H . Y o h n , Jr. Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February12, 2008 B E FO R E : SL O V I T E R , SM I T H and S T A P L E T O N , C i r cui tJudges ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: February14, 2008)2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udge: P lai n ti ff /app ell an t, E li za b eth B run o , b rou g h t th is acti o n u n d er the F ed era l T o rt C l ai m s A ct( “FT C A ”) t o r ecove rfori nj ur i es al l egedl ys uffe r ed on Sept ember18, 2004, as a r es ul tof the negl i gence of pos t al empl oy ees . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed hers ui ton s over ei gn i m m uni t ygr ounds . W e w i l l aff i r m fort he r eas ons s etfor t h i n i t s opi ni on. T h e F T C A w aive s the so v ere ign im m u n ityo f th e f ed era l go v ern m en t fo r t o rt c laim s a risin g f

ro m th e n e g lig e n c e o f

its e m p lo y e e s a c tio n w ith in th e sc o p e o f th e ir empl oym ent . H ow ever , “an i ni t i al pr es ent at i on of the cl ai m t o t he appr opr i at e fe der al agenc yand a f

i nal deni al byt hatagenc y ” ar e non- w ai vabl e j ur i s di ct i onal pr er equi s i t es for su its b ro u g h t u n d e r th e F T C A . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 6 7 5 (a ); B i al ow as v. U ni t ed Stat es , 443 F. 2d 10 47 , 10 49 (3d C i r. 19 71 ). In order t o p roperl ypresentsuch a c l ai m , a plai nti ff m ust p r o v i d e t h e a g e n c y w i t h w r i t t e n n o t i f i c a t i o n o f

t h e i n c i d e n ti n v o l v e d “ a c c o m p a n i e d b y a c l a i m f o rmo n e yd a ma g e s i n a s u m c e r t a i n , ” k n o wn a s t h e “ s u m r e q u i r e me n t . ” 3 9 C. F . R. § 9 1 2 .5 (a ); B i al ow as , 4 4 3 F .2 d a t 1 0 4 9 . T h e p u rp o se o f th e “ su m re q u ire m e n t” is to

“ e n a b le a d e ter m in a tio n b yth e h e a d o f th e f e d e ra l ag e n c ya s to w h e th e r th e c laim f a lls w ith in th e ju risd ictio n a l li m its o f h is e x c lu siv e a u th o rityto p ro c e ss , se ttl e o r to p ro p e rly adj udi cat e the cl ai m . . . [and] t o s etup uni form pr ocedur es i n t he exe r ci s e of s et t l ement3

author i t y . ” B i al ow as , 443 F. 2d at1050. T hus , a pl ai nt i ff musts t at e a “ s peci fi c s um ” or “i nform at i on . . . fr om w hi ch a s peci fi c amountcoul d be comput ed. ” B i al ow as , 443 F. 2d a t 1 0 4 9 ; s e e a l

s o Ha wa Ab d i J

a ma v . I NS , 22 F. Supp. 2d 353, 367 ( D . N . J . 1998) . I f a p l a i n t i f f f a i l s t o d o s o , t h e n a d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s d e p r i v e d o f j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rt h e F TCA c la im . B i al ow as , 4 4 3 F .2 d a t 1 0 4 9 ; Tuckerv. U. S. P os talSer v. , 676 F. 2d 954, 959 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 8 2 ). O n Sept ember27, 2004, B runo, t hr ough couns el , s ubm i t t ed a l et t ert o t he U ni t ed St at es Post al Ser vi ce gi vi ng not i ce thats he had s uffe r ed i nj ur i es as a r es ul tof the negl i gence of i t s empl oy ees . T hatl et t erfai l ed t o s t at e, how ever , a s peci fi c s um or “i nform at i on . . . fr om w hi ch a s peci fi c amountcoul d be comput ed. ” B i al ow as , 443 F. 2d a t 1 0 4 9 . T h is d e f

icie n c yw a s n o t cu re d p rio r to th e f ili n g o f th is s u it. T he or derof the D i s t r i ctC our tw i l l be af fi r m ed.