Opinion ID: 3036735
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Source of Jurisdiction

Text: Subrogees contend that allegations made under the FTCA are enough to trigger federal-court jurisdiction and that their claims should survive a Rule 12(b)(1) motion based on their 4 Even if a question is one of the merits, a plaintiff’s claim may be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) if it “clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682–83 (1946). This exception to the jurisdiction/merits—i.e., Rule 12(b)(1)/Rule 12(b)(6)—dichotomy does not apply here. 11 mere invocation of the FTCA. We start by observing that the District Court’s jurisdiction—if it exists—would not come from the general grant of federal-question jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Instead, the FTCA itself is the source of federal courts’ jurisdiction to hear tort claims made against the Government that meet various criteria: “[T]he district courts . . . shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). As the Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued, and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit.” United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941) (citations omitted). Thus, FTCA plaintiffs must meet the criteria of § 1346(b)(1) before a district court may exercise jurisdiction. In particular, § 1346(b)(1) lists six threshold requirements that a plaintiff’s claim must satisfy to confer jurisdiction. A claim must be made “[1] against the United States, [2] for money damages, . . . [3] for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death [4] caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government [5] while acting within the scope of his office or 12 employment, [6] under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 477 (1994) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1)) (alterations in original). The cause of action in an FTCA claim, on the other hand, must come from state tort law. Id. at 478 (describing state tort law as “the source of substantive liability under the FTCA”). Unfortunately, the split between jurisdiction and the merits is not always clear. The same facts may apply to whether an employee acted within the scope of his employment and, say, whether that employee breached a duty under state law. In the context of the FTCA, as well as other areas, separating jurisdictional facts from factual issues relating to the merits has generated difficult problems, as we discuss below.