Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 20825
C A T H YAA N D E R S O N , P l a i n ti ff - A p p ell a n t v. U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , D efen da n t- A pp el l ee

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he Sout her n D i st r i c tof Texas U SD C N o. 4: 08- C V

- 3381

B ef ore R E AV L E Y , D AV IS, an d S T E W A R T , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Thi s i s a n a ppe alo f

t he d i s t r i c tc o u r t ' s o r de r s s ubs t i t ut i ng t he G o ve r nm e nt
as D e fe nda nta nd d i s m i s s i ng t he c as e . Fo rt he f o l l o w i ng r e as o ns , w e RE VE RSE
a n dR EMAND. I. P l ai n t i f f /A pp el l an tC athy A n derson i s a G roup S u pervi sor i n t h e O f f i ce of D i sabi l i t y A dj u di cat i on an d R evi ew of t h e Soci alSecu ri t y A dm i n i st rat i on ( " S S A " )
. ScotSti er i s a C ase Intake A ssi st an t i n t h at of f i ce. S t i er' s du t i es as a United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 8, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-20825 Document: 00511022181 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/08/2010N o. 08- 20825

The recor d in dicates th at the OSC concluded its investigation again st Appellant and 1 took no actionagainst her. Stier, however, was ulti mately suspended b y the SSA temporarily for failure to perform his duties. Stier subsequentlyf iled a "Whi stleb lower" clai m with the Merit Syste ms Protection Board, alle gingth at the SSA retali ated again st hi m for writin g his complaint letter about Appellant to the OSC. TheMSP B hel d, however , th at Stierh ad b een rep rim ande d forhis failureto do hisjob and not forhis purportedwhis tleblow ing activity. 2 Cas e I nt ak e Ass i st anti nc l ude d r e vi e w i ng anda nal yz i ng c as e s f r o m SSA cl ai m an t s t o ensu re s u f f i ci en cy of

t h e e v id en ce, prepa ri n g case s u m m ari es, c o m m uni c at i ng w i t h c l ai m ant s a bo utt he i rc l ai m s , a nd, w hen r e que s t e d,
r ec eivin g a nd re vi ew i ng i nco m i ng m ai l
. At al lr el evantt i m es , A ppel l antw as S t i er' s s u pervi sor. In J u ly2 0 0 7 , A p p e lla n t p r o p o s e da th r e e -d a ys u s p e n s io n o f S t i e r fo rh is al l eged fai l u re t o properl y process a l arge am ou n t of m ai l t h at h ad been assi gn ed t o hi m . On O c t o be r2 , 2 00 7, St i e rw r o t e a let t e rt o t he D i s c l o s ur e s U ni to f t he O f f i c e o f Spe c i al Couns e l ( " O SC" ) , al l e gi ng t hat Appe l l ant h ad been

" c o nf i s c at i ng" m ai lf

r o m SSA c l ai m ant s a nd " ho l di ng o n t o i t " f or m ore t han a year, rat h er t h an al l ow i n g t h e m ai lto b e p roperl y di st ribu t ed f or r evi ew . Sti er c l ai m e d t hatAppe l l ant ' s a c t i o ns vi o l at e d t he c l ai m ant s ' due pr o c e s s r i ght s a nd th a t h e ra c tio n s w e r e a "g r o s s m is m a n a g e m e n t a n da b u s e o f a u th o r ity ." 1 O n Sep t em ber 29, 200 8, A pp el l an tf i l ed a P et i t i on i n T exas C ivi lD i st ri ct Cour t , c l ai m i ng t hatSt i e r ' s l e t t e rt o t he O SC had de fam e d he r . I n t he al t er nat ive, A ppel l antc l ai m ed t hatSt i er ' s l et t erhad c ause d heri nt en t i onal i nf l i c t i o n o f

e m o t i o na ldi s t r e s s . On N o ve m be r1 4, 2 00 8, t he G o ve r nm e nt–a c t i ng o n St i e r ' s b e hal f

–re m o ve d t he ca s e t o fe de r aldi s t r i c tco ur t
. The G o ve r nm e nt al so f i l ed a m ot i on t o substi t u t e i t sel f as D efen da n t i n t h e case. A s groun ds f or r e m o va la nd s ubs t i t ut i o n, t he G o ve r nm e nta r gu ed t hatSt i e rha d b e e n a c t i ng w i t h i n t h e sco p e o f hi s em pl oym en tw h en he w rot e t h e al l eged l y defam ator y st atem en t s. A ccor di n gl y, the G overnm en ta rgued tha tthe excl u sive rem edyf or Appe l l ant ' s c l ai m s w as t he Fe de r alT ortC l ai m s Ac t( " FTC A" ) , a nd t hatt he Case: 08-20825 Document: 00511022181 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/08/2010N o. 08- 20825

3 p r o p e rD e fe n d a n t w a s th e G o v e r n m e n t
. S ee2 8 U
. S. C. § § 2 67 9(b) ( 1) , ( d)
. The G o ve r nm e nta t t ac he d a cer t i f i c at i o n f

r o m t he U ni t e d St at e s At t o r ne y f o rt he S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f T e x a s a s s e r tin gt h a t S tie rw a s a c tin gw ith in t h e s c o p e o f h is
em pl oym en tf

or purp oses of

t h e F T C A
. Aw eek l ater , t h e G overnm en t m oved f or di sm i s s al o f t he e nt i r e c as e , ar gui ng t hat Appe l l ant had fai l e d t o e xha usther ad m i ni s t r at ive r e m e di e s a nd t hathe rc l ai m s w e r e o t he r w i s e b ar red byt he FT CA. O n D ecem ber 9, 200 8, t h e di st ri ctcourtgran t ed the G overnm en t ' s m ot i on t o s ubs t i t ut e pa r t i e s a nd d i s m i ssedSt i e rf r o m t he c as e . Al s o o n t hatda y, t he di s t r i c t c o ur t i s s ue d a f i nal o r de r o f

di s m i s s al
. Appe l l antno w a ppe al s b o t h t he order substi t u t i n g pa rt i es and t h e order di sm i ssi n g t h e case. II. W e revi ew a di st ri ctcourt ' s di sm i ssalof a case on t h e pl ead i n gs de n ovo. S ee B on n er v. Hend ers on , 147 F. 3d 457, 459 (5th C i r . 1998) (c i t i ng G ui dryv. B an k of L aP lace , 9 5 4 F .2d 2 7 8 , 2 8 1 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 2 )). III. W e b egi n w i t h t he di st r i c tc our t ' s or ders ubst i t ut i ng t he G ove r nm entas D e fe nda nt
. The ent i r e t y o f t hator de rst at e s : " Sc o tA
. St i e ri s di s m i s s e d, and t he U n i ted S tates o f A m erica is sub sti tu ted u n d er th e F ed era lT orts C l a i m s A ct. " T h e F T C Aprovi des t h e excl u sive rem edy " f or i nj u ry or l oss of

property, or persona li nj u ry or dea t h ari si n g or resul t i n g f rom t h e n egl i gen tor w rongfulact
o ro m i s s i o n o f

a ny e m pl o ye e o f

t he G o ve r nm e ntw hi l e a c t i ngw i t h i n t h e s cope of hi s of f i c eo re mploy m e nt. . . ." 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 6 7 9 (b )(1 ) (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). S peci f i cal l y, § 2679 ( d)( 1) provi des: U p o n c e r t i f

i c a t i o n b yt h e At t o r n e yGe n e r a lt h a tt h e d e fe n d a nt em pl oye e w as ac t i ng w ith in th e scop e of h is offi ce oremp loy m en t at t h e t i m e of

t h e i n ci den tou tof w h i ch t h e cl ai m arose, an y civi lact i on or proc eedi n g com m en ced up on such cl ai m i n a U n i t ed S ta tes di st r i c tc o ur ts hal lb e de e m e d a n a c t i o n a ga i ns tt he U ni t e d St ates Case: 08-20825 Document: 00511022181 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/08/2010N o. 08- 20825

4 unde rt he pr o vi s i o ns o f t hi s t i t l e a nd a l lre fe r e nc e s t he r e t o , a nd t he U n i ted S tates sh a l lbe su b sti tu ted as th e p a rty d efen d a n t. § 2 6 7 9 (d )(1) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). In t h e i n st an t case, t h e U n i t ed Stat es A t t orney fort h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ct of T exas, act i n g on proper au t h ori t y f or t h e A t t orney G en eral , cert i f i ed t h at Sti er w a s a c t in gw ith in th e s c o p e o f h is e m p lo y m e n t w h e n S tie rw r o te th e a lle g e d ly d e fa m a to r yle tt e r . S ee 28 C
. F
. R
. § 15. 4( a)
. T h i s cert i f i cat i on precl u des u s f rom o r de r i ng a r e m and t o s t at e c o ur t i n t he e ve nt t hatt he At t o r ne y G e ne r ala nd t he d is tr ic t co u r t er r e d in d e te r m in in g S tie r ' s s c o p e o f e m p lo y m e n t. S ee § 2 6 7 9 (d )(2); O sborn v. Haley , 54 9 U
. S. 22 5, 24 1- 42 , 12 7 S. Ct
. 8 81 , 8 94 ( 20 07 )
. H o w e ve r , t he
c er t i f i c a ti on doe s not" pre c l ude a di st r i c tc our tf r om r es ubst i t ut i ng t he f ede r al off i ci a las d efen d a n t forp u rp o se s of tria l if th e c o u r t d e te r m in e s , p o s t r e m o v a l, th a t t h e A tt o r n e yG e n e r a l' s s c o p e -o f-e m p lo y m e n t c e r tific a tio n w a s in c o r r e c t." Id
. at 242, 127 S. C t
. at 894 ( em ph asi s i n ori gi n al)
. A ccor di n gl y, t h e d istri ct
c o u r t's o r d e rs u b s tit u tin gp a r tie s is s u s c e p tib le to o u rre v ie w . Se ei d. ; G arc i a v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 6 2 F .3d 1 2 6 , 1 2 7 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 5 ) ( e n b a n c).

" [W ] he t he ra pa r t i c ul arfe de r alem pl o ye e w as orw as nota c t i ng w i t hi n t he
s c o pe o f

hi s e m pl o ym e nti s contr ol l e d b y t he l aw of t he s t at e i n whi c h t he
n eg l i ge n t or w ron gfu l con d u ct occu rred
. " G a rc ia , 62 F. 3d at127 (c i t i ng Wi l l i a ms v . Un i t ed S t ate s , 3 5 0 U. S
. 8 5 7 , 7 6 S
. Ct
. 1 0 0 ( 1 9 5 5 ) )
. I n T e x a s , t o b e f o und
w i t hi n t he s c o pe o f

e m pl o ym e nt , a n e m pl o ye e ' s a c tm us t fal l" [ 1] w i t hi n t he s c o pe of t h e em pl oyee' s generalau t h ori t y [ 2] i n f u rt h eran ce of

t h e em pl oyer' s busi n ess a n d[3 ] fo rth e a c c o m p lis h m e n t o f th e o b je c t fo r w h ic h th e e m p lo y e e w a s h ir e d ." Mi ny ar d Foo d S t o r e s , Inc . v . G o o dm an , 80 S. W
. 3d5 73 , 5 77 (Tex
. 2 00 2) (c i t i ng R obe r t s on Tan k Li nes , I nc. v. Va n C le ave , 46 8 S
. W
. 3 d35 4 , 35 7 (T ex . 19 7 1 ))
. In ad di t i on , " ' t h e condu ctm u st be of t h e sam e gen eralna t u re as t h at authori zed or i n ci d en tal to th e con d u ct au th orized
. ' " I d. ( quot i ng S m i t h v. M S ys. F oodS t ores , Case: 08-20825 Document: 00511022181 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/08/2010N o. 08- 20825

5 Inc. , 297 S. W
. 2d 112 , 114 ( 195 7) )
. " In ot h er w ords, if an em pl oyee dev i ates f rom t h e perf

orm an ce of

hi s du t i es fo r h is ow n pu rposes, t h e em pl oyer i s not resp on sibl e for w h a t occu rs d u ri n g th a t de viation
. " I d. (c i t i ng ITT

Con sum er Fi n. Cor

p. v . Tov ar , 9 3 2 S .W .2d 1 4 7 , 1 5 8 (T e x . A p p . 1 9 9 6 )).

" Fora n e m pl o ye rt o b e l i ab l e f o rde fam at i o n b y i t s em pl o ye e i n Te xa s , t he d efam a torystatem en t m u st b e ( 1 ) refera b l e t o a d u ty ow ed bythe em p l oy ee to t he e m pl o ye ra nd ( 2) m ad e w hi l e t he e m pl o ye e i s i n t he pr o c e s s o f di s c har gi ng th a t du ty. " R od rigu ez v. S a rabyn , 1 29 F. 3d7 60 , 7 69 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 7) (c i t i ng T exam O i lCorp. v. Poyn or , 436 S. W
. 2d 1 29, 1 30 (T ex. 1 968 ) )
. For an em pl oyer to es ca p e v ica rio u s liab il ity , a e m p loy e e h a s to d o m o re th a n "m e n ta ll ytu rn [] asi de" f rom hi s em pl oyer' s busi n ess an d m u st be ou t si de of hi s act u aldu t i es of
e m p lo y m e n t. I

d. (c i t i ng H
. T. Cab Co
. v . G i nns , 28 0 S. W
. 2d3 60 , 3 62 (Tex
. App. 1 9 5 5 )); T

ex. & P
. Ry. Co. v. Hag enloh , 2 4 7 S .W .2d 2 3 6 , 2 4 1 (T e x . 1 9 5 2 )). I n Mi nyard , t h e pl ai n t i f f sued M i n yard (h er em p loyer) an d h er di rect sup ervi sor f

or defam ator y com m en t s t h at h er su pervi sor h ad m ad e i n res pon se to a w o r k p la c e m is c o n d u c t in v e s tig a tio n . Miny a r d, 80 S
. W
. 3d at 578
. Th e court h el d that th e s u p ervi sor h ad act ed ou t si de the scope of hi s em pl oym en tw h en d e fa m in gth e p la in t if f b e c a u s e th e r e w a s n o e v id e n c e t h a t th e s u p e r v is o r 's
com m en t s " w ere r eferabl e to a n y du t y ow ed t o M i n yard , or, in other w ords, w ere i n f u rt h eran ce of

M i n yard ' s benefi t , an d f or t h e accom pl i shm en tof the obj ectf

or w h i ch the em p l oy ee w a s h i red
. " I d. a t5 7 9
. T h e c o u r tn o t e dth a t"M in y a r d 's pol i ci es requ i re em pl oyees t o parti ci pa t e i n w orkp l ace m i scondu ct in v e s tig a tio n s ," a s th e s u p e r v is o rd idw h e n h e d e fa m e dth e p l a i n t i f f, a r g u a b ly g iv in gris e to a d u t y b y t h e s u p e r v is o rto s p e a k to th e in v e s tig a to r s . I d. N evert h el ess, t h e courthel d that no vi cari ou s l i abil i t y exi ste d b ecau se " t h ese p oli ci es d o n ot d e m o n strate tha t [th e su p erv i sor' s] d efam i n g [the plain ti ff ] to [ ano t he rw o r ke r ] dur i ng t he i nve s t i ga t i o n woul d f ur t he rM i n ya r d' s b us i ne s s a nd
a ccom p l i sh a p u rp ose of [t h e su p erv i sor' s] j ob
. " I d. Case: 08-20825 Document: 00511022181 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/08/2010N o. 08- 20825

Th e Govern me nt als o cite s Aversa v. Un ited States , 9 9F .3 d 1 2 0 0 , 1 2 0 7 -0 8 , 1 2 1 3( 1 st 2 C ir
. 1 9 9 6). Aversa , however , is a First Circuit case that applies New Hampshire law regarding sc op e of e mp loyme nt, notTexa s l aw. Seei d
. at 121 0. It s rulin g is therefore not apposite. 6 Mi nyardi s anal o go us t o t he i ns t antca s e . Li ke t he s upe r vi s o ri n Mi nyard , S t i er m ad e hi s all eged l y defam ator y com m en t s as pa rtof w h at w ou l d becom e a w o r kpl ac e m i s c o nduc ti nve s t i ga t i o n. H o w e ve r , a ssum i n g A pp el l an t ' s al l egati o ns t o be t rue, Sti er' s c om m en t s w ere not i n f u rt h eran ce of

hi s s peci f

i c d u t i es as a Cas e I nt ak e Ass i s t ant , b utm ad e o uto f ape r s o nalv e nde t t a t o pun i s h Appe l l ant fo rh e rr e c o m m e n d e ds u s p e n s io n . S t i e rw a s n o t"a c t in gfo rth e e m p lo y e r 's b en efi t" w h en h e lie d a b ou t A p p ell a n t, n or w ere h i s d efam a torycom m en ts " to
a ccom p l i sh an ob j ective of h i s j ob
. " I d. at578 ( c i t at i o ns o m i t t e d)
. I nde e d, a s t he
c o ur ti n Mi nyard s t at e d, " [ t ] he r e i s a c r i t i c al di s t i nc t i o n be t w e en defam i ng s o m e o n e to o n e' s em p l oy er a n dde fam i n g so m eo n e for on e' s em p l oy er." I d. at 5 7 9
. M o r e o v e r , S tie rd idm o r e th a n m e n ta llytu r n a s id e fr o m h is d u tie s . H e de vi at e d f

r o m hi s no r m alc o u rses of ac t i o n t o fab r i c at e a s t o r y t hatAppe l l ant
w as ha rm i n g ot h ers. D espi t e n ot i n g t h e si m i l ari t i es t o Mi nyard , t he G ove r nm entar gues t hat S t i er w as act i n g w i t h i n t h e sc ope of hi s em pl o y m e n t becau se Sti er' s l et t er com pl ai n ed of

A pp ell a n t w ith h o ld in gcla im a n ts' m a il , a n dS tier ' s d u ties in cl u ded processi n g corr espon den ce i n a t i m el y m an n er. Th e G overnm en tf u rt h er argues t h at w e ha ve al readyhel d that governm en tagen t s w h o al l eged l y defam ed
a n o t h e r i n t h e c o u r s e o f t h e i rd u t i e s w e r e s h i e l d e df r o m d e fa ma t i o n c l a i ms b eca u se th eir com m en ts " w ere i n ci d e n t to the disch a rg e of [th eir du ti es]. " S ee R od rigu ez , 129 F. 3d at770- 71. R o dr igu ez , h ow ev er, i s d i sti n gu i sh a b l e. In 2 R od rigu ez , tw o fe d e r a l a g e n ts w e r e s p e c ific a llyta s k e db yth e B u r e a u o f A lc o h o l, T ob a cco, a n dF i rea rm s ( "A T F ") to m a k e sta tem e n ts o n t h e a ge n cy ' s be h a l f to th ir d p a r tie s a b o u t ap a r tic u la rw o r k -r e la te din c id e n t. Se ei d. at770
. O ne o f t he
a g e n ts a ls o h a da d u tya s s u p e r v is o rt o in fo r m h is s u b o r d in a te s o f th e e v e n t. I d. Case: 08-20825 Document: 00511022181 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/08/2010N o. 08- 20825

I ndee d , t hec ou rt in Minyard distinguished the statements of the AT F agents in 3 Rodriguezbynotin g that "the defamatory statement s [in Rodriguez] were the kind that the employees were 'authoriz ed and expected to make and were closely connectedtothe performance of their duties.'" Minyard, 80 S .W. 3d at 579 (quoti ng Rodriguez , 1 2 9F .3 d at 7 7 1 ). We do not find the same c ase here
. 7 In t h e inst a n t ca se, h ow ever, n o on e a tthe S S Asp eci f i cal l y t asked Sti er t o reporton h i s s u pervi sor' s beha vi or, nor w as i t a speci f i c f u n ct i on of

hi s w ork d u ti es. In st ead, St i ergr at ui t ous ly pr ovi ded the all eg ed l y d efam a torystatem en ts t o t he O SC whi l e do i ng no t hi ng t o s e e k r e l i e f t hr o ugh hi s o w n c hai n o f c o m m and
. St i erm ay pe r haps have had a ge ner aldut y t o r epo r tm i scon d u ctori l l egal
ac t i vi t y. M o r e o v e r , s u c h a r e p o r t , i f t r u e , mayu l t i m a t e l yfa c i l i t a t e t he pe r f o r m anc e o f

hi s dut i e s . H o w e ve r , t hi s ge ne r aldut y i s no tt he s am e a s b e i ng speci f i cal l y t asked by on e' s s u peri ors t o provi de i n f orm ati on t o t h i rd pa rt i es a b o u t a p a r tic u la rin c id e n t, n o ris it a k in to a s u p e r v is o r ' s d u ty t o k e e p h is
s u b o r d in a te s in fo r m e do f r e le v a n t e v e n ts
. S ee R od rigu ez , 1 2 9 F .3 da t 7 7 0 -7 1 ; see als o C rouch v. J

CPenn ey Corp. , I

n c. , 3 3 7 F
. A p p ' x 3 9 9 , 4 0 3 (5th C i r. 20 0 9 ) (" If st at em ent s m ade b y an e m pl oye e t o hi s em pl oye rabo utanot herem pl oye e a s par tof a requiredw or kpl ac e i nves t i gat i on c annotgive r i se t o de fam at i on [by
v ic a r io u s lia b ility ], J C P ca n n o t b e lia b le fo rd e fa m a tio n s im p lyb e c a u s e it allow edem p loy e e s to re p o rt m isco n d u ct to H R .") (em p h a sis in or igin a l). Acc o r di ngly, w e do no tf i nd t he fac t s i n R od rigu ezdi sposi t ive. 3 I n c o nc l us i o n, St i e rw as nothi r e d nort as ke d w i t h s upe r vi s i ng Appe l l ant andr e po r t i ng o n he rb e hav i o r . Any pur po r t e d d ut y t o do s o i n o r de rt o pr e ve nt frau d , w a ste, an dab u se w a s tan ge n ti a l to h i s d u ti es as a C a se Inta k e A ssistan t. A ss um i ng A ppel l ant ' s al l egat i ons ar e t r ue (w hi c h w e m ustatt he pl eadi ngs st age), S t i er' s defam ator y l et t er w as n ot " f or t h e accom pl i shm en t of th e obj ect fo r w h ich [h e] w a s h i red , " Mi nyard , 8 0 S. W
. 3da t5 77 , a nd t he r e f o r e w as not

" w i t hi n t he s c o pe o f

hi s o f f i c e o re m pl o ym e nt , " § 2 67 9( d) ( 1)
. A ccor di ngly, t he Case: 08-20825 Document: 00511022181 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/08/2010N o. 08- 20825

8 G o v e r n m e n t e r r e din ce r tify in gS tie r ' s a c tio n s , a n dth e d is tr i c t c o u r t e r r e d in
su b sti tu ti n g th e G ov ern m en t as D efen d a n t. I V. B ecau se t h e U n i t ed S t ates i s not t h e proper D efen da n t , w e m u strevi ew th e d is tr ic t c o u r t's d is m is s a l o f A p p e lla n t's c la im s b a s e do n t h e la w s t h a t w o u ld have appl i ed if

St i erhad r em ai ned i n t he c as e. The di st r i ct c our thel d t hat A pp ell an t ' s c l ai m of defam ati on w as barred by the st atute of l i m i t ati on s. H o w e ve r , t he s t at ut e o f l i m i t at i o ns fo ra t o r tc l ai m o f de fam at i o n i s o ne y e ar , a nd A p p e lla n t file dh e rca s e le s s th a n o n e y e a r a fte r S tie r p u b lis h e d th e le tt e r . S ee T EX . C IV . P RA C . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 16. 002( a) (V er non 2002)
. Acc or di ngl y, di sm i ssalof

t h e defem ati on c la im w as i m proper. Secon dl y, t h e di st ri ctcourt hel d t hatA ppel l ant ' s c l ai m of i nt ent i onali nf

l i c t i on o f

em ot i onaldi st r es s w as barred byA pp el l an t ' s fai l u re t o exh au stadm i n i stra tiv e rem edi es. H ow ever, be c aus e t he G o ve r nm e nti s no ta pr o pe rpa r t y, t hi s c as e do e s no tfal lw i t hi n t he FTC A' s e xha us t i o n r e qui r e m e nt s . Ac c o r di ngly, di s m i s s alo f Appe l l ant ' s s e c o nd cl ai m w as al so i m proper. V. T h e distri ct cou rt' s ord er su b sti tu ti n g t h e G ov ern m en t a s D efen d a n t is R E V E R S E D . C o n s e q u e n t ly , t h e d is t r ic tc o u r t 's o r d e rd is m is s in gA p p e ll a n t 's
c l ai m s bas ed o n t he s t at ut e o f l i m i t at i ons and fai l ure to ex haustadm i ni st r at ive rem edi es un der t h e F T C Ai s R E V E R S E D
. Th e case i s R E M A N D E D f or f u rt h er proceedi n gs. Case: 08-20825 Document: 00511022181 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/08/2010