Opinion ID: 202269
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The January 2003 Administrative Claim

Text: 12 By analogy to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(3), plaintiffs argue that their untimely administrative claim of December 2003 should relate back to the timely administrative claim submitted by their Uncle Richard, on January 27, 2003, for $100 million in damages, because the latter presented the same core allegations concerning the FBI's complicity in the wrongful death of their father. Further, they contend that the government would suffer no prejudice, since even if Richard had no authority under Massachusetts law as a voluntary administrator to file claims in behalf of his brother's estate, the FTCA notification requirement is not intended to be applied hyper-technically, but is satisfied if, as here, the government receives sufficient information to allow it to investigate the particular allegations of government misfeasance. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); Kubrick, 100 S.Ct. at 356-57; Santiago-Ramirez v. Sec'y of Dep't of Def., 984 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir.1993). 3 Thus, they maintain that the government is on notice to investigate even if the claimant— viz., Richard—had no legal standing to bring the eventual lawsuit against the government. 13 The district court held that the plaintiffs' claims could not relate back to Richard's January 27, 2003 claim because Richard—as a mere voluntary administrator—had no legal authority to act in behalf of his brother's estate, thus the government had no incentive to investigate the merits of his claim. Although this conclusion arguably may make sense from the policy standpoint that the government should not be made to commit its valuable time and resources to investigate a claim asserted by a party which lacks legal standing to pursue either settlement or litigation, the district court cited no supportive case authority for this proposition, and the legal question is neither straightforward nor well-settled. Indeed, we have noted that the express jurisdictional prerequisites of § 2675(a) are fully satisfied as long as the claimant states a claim of government wrongdoing and defines its damages in a sum certain, see Santiago-Ramirez, 984 F.2d at 19 (This Circuit approaches the notice requirement leniently.), and other courts have rejected the additional standing requirement relied on by the district court, see, e.g., Free v. United States, 885 F.2d 840, 842-43 (11th Cir.1989) (finding that an administrative claim filed by decedent's brothers and sisters, with no accompanying evidence that they had been appointed as legal representatives of the estate, nonetheless satisfied the jurisdictional requirements of § 2675(a)); Ozark Air Lines, Inc. v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 63 F.R.D. 69, 71 (N.D.Ill. 1974) (rejecting the government's argument that an administrative claim filed by a person who did not own the damaged property did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of § 2675(a)); see also Avila v. INS, 731 F.2d 616, 619-20 (9th Cir.1984) (noting that [a]ny other [presentment] requirements imposed by administrative regulations pursuant to section 2672 are not a bar to jurisdiction by the federal courts.) In other words, plaintiffs urge that, though the claimant's lack of standing may present an opportunity to dismiss the case against the government at some juncture, it is not a jurisdictional bar rendering the administrative claim legally void ab ovo. We need not resolve this thorny issue in the instant case. 14 Although the district court chose to bypass the question, the record demonstrates that Richard's January 27, 2003 administrative claim was not timely, and relation back (even if permissible) would therefore be futile. See Global Naps, Inc. v. Verizon New England, Inc., 444 F.3d 59, 69 (1st Cir.2006) (observing that appellate court may affirm on any ground supported by the record). As we have already noted, most of the breaking publicity concerning the FBI's complicity in the Deegan slaying occurred in December 2000 and early January 2001, and became a prominent topic of public interest especially within the Boston media market. 15 At this time, Richard was residing in that very Boston media market, viz., on nearby Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The plaintiffs rely on Richard's attestations that he was retired at this time, and heard nothing of these media reports. As we have noted, however, the test for FTCA accrual is not subjective, but objective, and in these particular circumstances, Richard must be assumed to have been exposed to the widespread in-state publicity concerning his own brother's murder. Moreover, assuming without deciding that Richard's retirement status might equitably toll the FTCA accrual date, the record does not contain any factual allegations to support the requisite inference that Richard's retirement was either so cloistered or debilitative that it prevented him from gaining access to these widespread media reports. Finally, and most importantly, the Boston Globe published an article on December 21, 2000 entitled FBI REPORTEDLY HID KEY EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTS SHOW IT KNEW OF DEEGAN SLAYING PLOT IN '65, and the very next day, the Globe published an article entitled SLAY VICTIM'S FAMILY TROUBLED BY REPORT ON FBI, in which a reporter interviewed Richard Deegan himself about the breaking news. 16 As Richard's administrative claim was submitted more than two years after he reasonably should have acquired knowledge of the FBI's involvement in his own brother's murder, it was untimely, and thus the plaintiffs' attempts to have their claims relate back to that claim are plainly futile. 17 Affirmed.