Case Name: Robyn HOLLOWAY and Sterling Holloway, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee, v. Security National Insurance Company, Proposed Intervenor-Plaintiff; et al., Movant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-17
Citations: 636 F. App'x 965
Docket Number: No. 14-16079
Parties: Robyn HOLLOWAY and Sterling Holloway, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee, v. Security National Insurance Company, Proposed Intervenor-Plaintiff; et al., Movant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges and LASNIK, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 636
Pages: 965–965

Head Matter:
Robyn HOLLOWAY and Sterling Holloway, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee, v. Security National Insurance Company, Proposed Intervenor-Plaintiff; et al., Movant-Appellant.
No. 14-16079.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 12, 2016.
Filed Feb. 17, 2016.
Chi Soo Kim, USSAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Stephen Nelson Cole, The Cole Law Firm, West Sacramento, CA, for Movant-Appellant.
Before: SILVERMAN and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges and LASNIK, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Security National Insurance Company appeals the district court's denial of its motion to intervene in a Federal Tort Claim Act action filed by Robyn and Sterling Holloway. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review de novo. Vacek v. U.S. Postal Serv., 447 F.3d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir.2006); Canatella v. California, 404 F.3d 1106, 1112 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.
The district court properly denied for lack of subject matter jurisdiction the insurance company's request to intervene because no party filed an administrative claim on behalf of the insurance company. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113, 113 S.Ct. 1980, 124 L.Ed.2d 21 (1993); Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir.2000). Because the filing of an administrative claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) is jurisdictional, Security National's arguments that it could intervene under the various rules of civil procedure lack merit. See Fed,R.Civ.P. 82; Canatella, 404 F.3d at 1113.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.