N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SOFIA JOHNSON,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A,

De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 23-55210 D.C . No. 5:21-c v-01878-JGB -KK
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Je sus G. B e rna l, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

17, 2024 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GOULD a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc u it Judge s, a nd HINDER

A KER , ** Distric t Judge
. Sofia

Johnson a

p pe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s orde r dism issing her c la im s unde r the Fe de ra l Tort C la im s Ac t (FTC A) a s tim e ba rre d. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

n d we va c ate and re m and. 

# FIL ED MAY24 2024 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble John C ha

rle s Hinde rak e r, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de s igna tion.The FTC A’ s sta t ute of limita

tions provide s tha

t “ [a ] tort c la im

a ga i nst the Unite d State s sha ll be fore ve r barre d unle ss it is pre s e nte d . . . to thea ppropria te Fe de ra l a ge nc y

within two ye ars a fte r suc h c l a im a c c rue s or unle ss a c tion is be gun within six m

o nths a fte r the d ate of m a i ling . . . of notic e of fina l de nia l of the c la im by the a ge nc y t o whic h it wa s pre se nte d.” 28 U.S.C . § 2401(b). Tha t two-y e ar sta tute of limita

tions, howeve r, is “ nonjurisdic tiona l a nd subje c t to e q

u ita ble tolling.” Unite d State

s v . W ong , 575 U.S. 402, 420 (2015). “ [G] e ne ra lly , a litiga nt
se e k ing e quita

b le tolling be ars the burde n of e sta blishing two e le m e nts: (1) tha t he ha s be e n pursuing his rights dilige ntly , a nd (2) tha t som e e xtra ordina

ry c irc um s ta nc e s stood in his wa

y .” W ong v . Be e be , 732 F.3d 1030, 1052 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba

nc ) (quoting C

re d it Suisse Se c . (USA) LLC

v . Simmonds , 566 U.S. 221, 227 (2012)). He re , the distric t c ourt a

p pe ars to ha

v e de te rm ine d

tha t Johnson sa

tisfie d the two e le m e nts for e quita

ble tolling, which

“p a use s the running of”the sta tute of lim ita tions. Lozano v . Montoy a Alv a re z , 572 U.S. 1, 10 (2014). Howe ve r, the distric t c o urt’ s orde r doe s not c le arly spe c ify the tim e pe riod subje c t to e quita ble tolling, inhibiting our a

bility to de te rm ine whe the r the distric t c ourt e rre d in dism issing Johnson’ s c la im s a s tim e ba rre d. M ore ove r, the distric t c ourt’ s orde r sta te s tha t “ e quita b l e tolling doe s not a

pply ” to Johnson’ s c la im s, c ontra dic ting its
2a

ppa re nt de te rm ination tha

t Johnson me t the two e le m e nts for e quita ble tolling. B e c a use we c annot disc e rn the distric t c ourt’ s re a soning a nd c onc lusions with
re spe c t to whe the r a

nd for wha

t dura tion Johnson wa s e ntitle d to e quita ble tolling,
we re m and so tha

t the distric t

c ourt c an c la

rify its de c i sion. 1 VACAT E D and RE M ANDE D . Ea c h pa rty sha ll be ar the i r own c osts on
a ppe a l.

1 W e de c line to re a c h the gove rnm e nt’ s a lte rnative argum e nt tha t we should a ffirm ba se d on the FTC A’ s disc re tiona ry func tion e xc e ption, be c a

use the distric t c ourt ne ve r pa sse d on tha t issue
. Se e Golde n GateHote l Ass’n v
. C

ity & C nty . of S.F. , 18 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th C ir. 1994) (“ As a ge ne ra l rule , ‘ a

fe de ra l a ppe lla te c ourt doe s not c onside r an issuenot pa sse d upon be l ow.’ ” (quoting Single ton v . W ulff , 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976))). 3