2010 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 4-29-2010 

# J eff H au se v . U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 09-2450

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" J eff H aus e v

. U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1440. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1440H onor abl e Loui s H . Pol l ak, Seni orJ udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor * t he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL 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. 09- 2450

J EFF HA USE,

A ppel l ant v. UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,
O n A p p e a l o f

a D e c isio n o f

th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey( C i v. N o. 08- 4880) D i s t r i ctJ udge: M aryL . C ooper Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

February2, 2010 B e f o re : M c K E E a n d H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudges , a n d P O L L A K , D is tr i ct

Judge . * ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 29, 2010) OP I NI ON2.

P O L L A K , D is tr i ct

Judge A ppel l antJ eff

H aus e appe al s t he di s m i s s al of hi s s ui tforl ack of s ubj ectm at t er ju risd ictio n . T h e D istric t C o u rt f o r th e D istric t o f

N e w Je rse yf

o u n d th a t H a u se f

a iled to ex h au st his ad m inistrati v e re m ed ies as re q u ir ed b ythe F ed era l T o rt s C lai m s A ct (F T C A ), 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 6 7 5 (a ). I. H aus e al l eges t hat , on M ar ch 3, 2006, w hi l e w al ki ng out s i de of the U ni t ed St at es P o s t a l S e r v i c e ( US P S ) i n Ke a r n y , Ne w J e r s e y , h e s l i p p e d a n d f e l l d u e t o i c ya n d s n o wy condi t i ons . O n February26, 2007, t he U SPS r ece i ved a For m - 95 not i ce of t or tcl ai m t hat i ncorr ect l yl i s t ed the i nci dentas occurr i ng i n “C r anburyT ow ns hi p, N ew J er s ey . ” The U SPS deni ed the cl ai m i n a l et t erdat ed O ct ober1, 2007, aft ert he U SPS ’ s i nves t i gat i on tur ned up no evi dence t hatt her e had be en an a cci dentatt he C r anburyU SPS fac i l i t yor t hatt her e w as anynegl i gence on t he partof the Pos t al Ser vi ce. O n D ece m ber6, 2007, H aus e fi l ed a c om pl ai nt( “C om pl ai nt#1") i n t he D i s t r i ctC our tal l egi ng t hathe s l i pped and fe l l att he K earnyU SPS fac i l i t y . C om pl ai nt#1 al l eged thatH aus e had pr es ent ed not i ce of an admi ni s t r at i ve cl ai m undert he FT C A bys ubm i s s i on of a For m - 95. T he g o v e rn m e n t f

iled a n a n sw e r th a t as su m e d th e a c c id e n t o c c u rre d in C ra n b u ryT o w n sh ip and thatt he compl ai ntcont ai ned a typogr aphi cal err or . T w o day s fol l ow i ng t he fi l i ng of t he ans w er , appel l ant ’ s couns el and governm entcouns el had a c onver s at i on, dur i ng w hi ch t heybot h fi r s tbeca m e aw ar e thatt he For m - 95 i dent i fi ed the w r ong l ocat i on. T he D i s t r i ct3.

C our tdi s m i s s ed C om pl ai nt#1 forfai l ur e t o exhaus ts i nce the admi ni s t r at i ve cl ai m s t at ed t he w r ong l ocat i on. H aus e then fi l ed a s econd c om pl ai nt( “C om pl ai nt#2") w hi ch al l eged that serv ice o f C o m p lai n t #1 w as su ff ici en t adm inistrati v e n o ti ce . T h e D istri ct C o u rt dis m i ssed C om plai nt #2 fo r fai l ure t o ex hau stadm i nis t rat i ve rem edies . II. T h e sta n d a rd o f

re v iew f o r a d ism iss a l f

o r la c k o f

su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n is p le n a ry. See G ould E l ecs . I nc. v. U ni t ed Stat es , 220 F. 3d 169, 176 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . T he FT C A r equi r es t hat , befor e fi l i ng a compl ai nt , a cl ai m ant“s hal l have f i r s tpr es ent ed the c laim to th e a p p ro p ria te F e d e ra l ag e n c y .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 6 7 5 (a ). T h e re q u ire m e n t th a t a s um - cert ai n cl ai m be fi r s tpr es ent ed t o t he age ncyi nvol ved i s a pr er equi s i t e t o t he fe der al c o u rt s ’ s u b

je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n . Whi t e - Sq u i r e v . USPS , - - - F. 3d - - - - , N o. 09- 1577, 2010 W L 293048, at*2 ( 3d C i r . J an. 27, 2010) . I n addi t i on, as t he FT C A i s a w ai verof s o v e re ig n im m u n ity b yth e U n ite d S ta te s , its re q u ir e m e n ts a re to b e s tr ic tly c o n s tru e d . R om a v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 3 4 4 F . 3 d 3 5 2 , 3 6 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T h e F T C A d o es n o t r eq u ir e t hatt he cl ai m ant ’ s not i ce pr es enteveryt heoryof l i abi l i t y , butt he cl ai m ant ’ s s ubm i s s i on m us t , atl eas t , “gi ve[] t he age ncyw r i t t en not i ce of hi s orhercl ai m s uffi ci entt o enabl e the agenc yt o i nves t i gat e. ” I d. H ow ever , “[a ] pl ai nt i ff c annotpr es entone cl ai m t o t he agenc yand then mai nt ai n s ui ton t he bas i s of a di ffe r ents etof fa ct s ” I d. C om pl ai nt#1 fai l s t o cons t i tut e ade quat e not i ce f ort w o r eas ons . Fi r s t , compl ai nt #1 i n i t s al l egat i ons s t at es t hatt he For m - 95, and nott he compl ai nt , w as t he admi ni s t r at i ve4.

not i ce of t he cl ai m . T he U SPS coul d notbe fa i r l yappr i s ed i tw as r ece i vi ng not i ce i n a document t hatbyi t s ow n t er m s w as nott he not i ce of t he cl ai m . Second, t he purpos e of t he not i ce r equi r ement i s t o encour age i nves t i gat i on and s et t l ement of cl ai m s befor e l egal p ro c e e d in g s a re in itia te d , th e re b yre d u c in g th e b u rd e n o n th e c o u rt s a n d th e g o v e rn m e n t. See Brady v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 21 1 F . 3d 49 9, 50 3 (9t h C i r. 20 00 ) ( “T hu s, al t ho ug h h er fi rs t compl ai ntm ayhave gi ven the age ncy‘ not i ce’ i n one s ens e of the w or d, i tdi d notgi ve the a g e n c yth e tim e lyn o tice o f a liv e c o n tro v e rsy th a t w o u ld h a v e a llo w e d th e a g e n c yto i nves t i gat e admi ni s t r at i vel yand pos s i bl ys ett l e the ca s e bef or e i tr es ur fac ed i n di s t r i ct co u rt . ”). T h e d o cu m en t th at, in the ca se a t bar, i n it iat ed p roc ee d ing s in the D istri ct C o u rt cannotful fi l l t he r equi r ement of t he FT C A t hata cl ai m ant“s hal l have f i rst pr es ent ed” (e m p h a sis a d d e d ) th e c laim to th e a g e n c yb e f o re f ili n g su it. III . F o r th e re a so n s s tate d , w e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r o f d ism iss a l.