Case Name: Vernon PARKER, husband and Lisa Farringer Parker, wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-10
Citations: 500 F. App'x 630
Docket Number: No. 11-16389
Parties: Vernon PARKER, husband and Lisa Farringer Parker, wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, GOULD, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 500
Pages: 630–632

Head Matter:
Vernon PARKER, husband and Lisa Farringer Parker, wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-16389.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2012.
Filed Dec. 10, 2012.
Shannon Clark, Patrick J. McGroder, III, Esquire, Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A., Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Ian Samuel, DOJ, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Diana L. Varela, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: SILVERMAN, GOULD, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Appellants Vernon Parker and Lisa Far-ringer Parker appeal from the district court's order dismissing their Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and now affirm.
The district court found that the Parkers' abuse of process claim was covered by the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), and dismissed it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We agree. The government has established that the Small Business Administration's Office of Inspector General's investigation into VBP Group, LLC's 8(a) certification application was not subject to any legal constraint or mandatory procedure under federal law; Special Agent Lee Bacon retained discretion, and his investigation was "susceptible to a policy analysis." Green v. United States, 630 F.3d 1245, 1249, 1251 (9th Cir.2011) (quotation marks omitted). The subjective motivations or procedural irregularities the Parkers allege are irrelevant, as this discretionary government function as a whole is excepted from the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity. United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 324-25, 111 S.Ct. 1267, 113 L.Ed.2d 335 (1991); Sabow v. United States, 93 F.3d 1445, 1452 n. 6, 1454 (9th Cir.1996). This investigation was not only susceptible to a policy analysis, but was informed by policy considerations in ascertaining whether a regulatory scheme's rules had been violated. This claim was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The district court also dismissed the negligent supervision claim for failure to state a claim. However, since the discretionary function exception is a threshold jurisdictional matter, we must resolve this question prior to reaching the motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We may affirm on any grounds supported by the record, Schechner v. KPIX-TV, 686 F.3d 1018, 1022-23 (9th Cir.2012), and now hold that the Parkers' negligent supervision claim is also barred by the discretionary function exception. The Ninth Circuit has stated that negligent supervision claims "fall squarely within the discretionary function exception." Nurse v. United States, 226 F.3d 996, 1001 (9th Cir.2000); see also Gager v. United States, 149 F.3d 918, 921-22 (9th Cir.1998). The SBA's supervision of its staff is clearly a discretionary function, entails the consideration of policies and competing administrative and investigatory priorities, and is therefore immunized from liability under the FTCA. The district court's ruling is therefore affirmed on the alternative ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. The district court ruled, in the alternative, that the Parkers had failed to state a claim for abuse of process. We need not reach this ruling, as we have already affirmed the dismissal of this claim on jurisdictional grounds.