Opinion ID: 488510
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Keene II

Text: 29 In order to evaluate Keene's claims in this appeal, it is necessary first to ascertain the effect of the Second Circuit's decision in Keene I. Although the Second Circuit never reached the merits of Keene's claims against the United States, it did affirm dismissal of the case on jurisdictional grounds. This judgment has preclusive effect, for [t]he principles of res judicata apply to questions of jurisdiction as well as to other issues. 70 The task before us is to determine the exact contours of the preclusion worked by Keene I. 30 It is ordinarily the case that a judgment dismissing an action for lack of jurisdiction will have no preclusive effect on the cause of action originally raised. Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly provides that a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction will not operat[e] as an adjudication on the merits. 71 The judgment ordering dismissal, will, however, have preclusive effect as to matters actually adjudicated; it will, for example, preclude relitigation of the precise issue of jurisdiction that led to the initial dismissal. 72 A claim of jurisdiction is not precluded if, however, in the interim subsequent to the initial dismissal there are developments tending to cure the jurisdictional deficiency identified in the first suit. 73 This so-called curable defect exception applies where a 'precondition requisite' to the court's proceeding with the original suit was not alleged or proven, and is supplied in the second suit. 74 31 While the curable-defect exception allows relitigation of a claim of jurisdiction, it does not allow for relitigation of the standards by which jurisdiction is ascertained. Where there is mutuality of parties, the party alleging jurisdiction in a second action will be precluded from relitigating any issue of fact or law determined against it in the first action which it had full opportunity to litigate. 75 The preclusive effect of the first jurisdictional judgment is limited to matters actually raised and necessarily decided; it does not extend to matters that could have been raised, as would the preclusive effect of a judgment on the merits. 76 32 Turning to the case before us, it appears that the Second Circuit's decision in Keene I does not preclude Keene's effort to establish federal jurisdiction in this circuit for its tort claim against the United States. The judgment in Keene I does, however, prevent it from relitigating the standards for proper presentment under Section 2675(a). The jurisdictional requirements for suits under the Federal Tort Claims Act were decided by the Second Circuit in Keene I, a prior action involving the same parties and substantially the same claim, and, as the District Court properly ruled, it is not open to Keene to seek a new interpretation of them in this circuit. 77 33 Keene is, however, entitled to establish jurisdiction by filing a new presentment curing the deficiencies the Second Circuit identified in the first. This it has attempted to do by filing a new notice of claim. While the decision in Keene I pertained to a 1979 notice, the complaint upon which this action is based relied on a 1981 notice of claim, which purports to cure the deficiencies of the first. After a careful comparison of Keene's 1979 and 1981 notices and a painstaking review of the ruling in Keene I, the District Court determined that Keene had still failed to satisfy the requirements for proper presentment under Section 2675(a) of the Act. 78 Its determination seems to us unquestionably correct. 34 In rejecting Keene's 1979 notice of claim, the Second Circuit stated that adequate presentment would have to state a sum certain for the claim as a whole, and then allocate that amount to each of the underlying claims aggregated in the total claim for damages. Keene has stated a sum certain in its 1981 notice of claim, but it has not allocated damages to each of the underlying claims. 79 The Second Circuit further required Keene to provide additional factual background and a specific theory of liability for each of the underlying claims, or for meaningful groups of them, in order for the agencies to undertake review of its claim for indemnification. This the 1981 notice of claim fails to do. 80 The additional information provided by the 1981 notice--regarding, for example, Keene's insurance policies--while helpful, surely does not satisfy the requirements for presentment set forth in Keene I, either in letter or spirit. We therefore affirm the District Court in its ruling that Keene has failed to make an adequate presentment in accordance with Section 2675(a). 35 In this case, Keene asserts that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear its complaint on one other ground, neither argued nor addressed in Keene I. 81 While the Government objected within six months to the adequacy of Keene's 1979 notice, it made no such objection to the 1981 notice until almost eight months after the claim had been filed. 82 Keene argues that in view of the Government's failure to make timely objection, its presentment should be deemed to have been denied as a matter of law, thus giving rise to jurisdiction under the Act notwithstanding the Government's objections to the adequacy of its presentment. In support of this argument, Keene invokes Section 2675(a) of the Act, which provides in material part: 36 The failure of an agency to make final disposition of a claim within six months after it is filed shall, at the option of the claimant any time thereafter, be deemed a final denial of the claim for purposes of this section. 83 37 Thus, according to Keene, the Government's failure to object, or to respond in any fashion to its presentment until after the running of the six-month period, entitled Keene to treat its claim as denied as a matter of law and file suit, consistently with the jurisdictional prerequisites of Section 2675(a). 38 Characterizing Keene's argument as a claim of waiver, the District Court rejected it, reasoning that because the administrative filing requirements of the Act are jurisdictional in nature, they can not be waived by action of the parties. In any event, the court observed, Section 2675(a) provides the claimant with the option of filing suit after six months, on the premise that the notice originally provided the agency complies with the requirements of the Act. 84 39 These are persuasive grounds for rejecting Keene's argument. We decline, however, to hold that in no circumstances could the Government's failure to make timely objection to the adequacy of a claimant's presentment constitute a de jure denial of that presentment establishing jurisdiction to sue under the Act. Congress clearly contemplated that the administrative filing procedure mandated by Section 2675(a) would impede claimant access to the courts by a period no greater than six months: it provided that the agencies are to make final disposition of a claim within six months, 85 or the claimant would be entitled to treat the claim as denied as a matter of law. Where a claimant makes a reasonable effort to notify federal agencies of a claim in accordance with the administrative filing procedures of Section 2675(a), and the Government takes no action to apprise the claimant of objections to the presentment within the six-month time period it has to make final disposition of the claim, it seems to us in the very least, that such delay qualifies the force of the Government's objections when it subsequently moves for dismissal on the ground that the presentment was inadequate for its investigative purposes. If the Government objects to the adequacy of a claimant's presentment, it should provide timely notice to the claimant so that the claimant may, if it wishes, cure its presentment in an expeditious fashion. 86 40 Whatever the merits of Keene's argument, it has, however, little force on the facts of this case. Keene filed its 1981 notice of claim in the interim subsequent to the District Court's ruling on its 1979 notice of claim in Keene I, but prior to the Second Circuit's decision in that case. 87 It was amply apprised of the Government's objections to its 1979 notice, and, more generally, of the extent and character of the notice the Government sought in presentment of Keene's claim for indemnification. Keene may have disagreed with the Government's demands, but it flies in the face of the facts to say it lacked notice of them. If there are in fact circumstances in which the Government's failure to object in timely fashion to the adequacy of a presentment may be taken as a de jure denial of the claim, they are not the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, we affirm the District Court's order dismissing No. 84-5693.