Opinion ID: 1038217
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The FTCA Limitations Period

Text: “It is axiomatic that the United States may not be sued without its consent and that the existence of consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction.”4 Federal courts have jurisdiction to hear suits against the government only with “a clear statement from the United States waiving sovereign immunity, together with a claim falling within the terms of the waiver.”5 The FTCA provides that waiver, but only “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.”6 As the tortious acts alleged in this case occurred in Louisiana, plaintiffs may sue the government if Louisiana law would impose tort liability on a private person for the wrongs alleged. Before suing under the FTCA, however, plaintiffs first had to exhaust their remedies with the DOI within two years of the date on which their FTCA claims 2 Alexander v. United States (In re Fema Trailer Formaldehyde Prods. Liab. Litig.), 646 F.3d 185, 189 (5th Cir. 2011). 3 Id.; Vantage Trailers, Inc. v. Beall Corp., 567 F.3d 745, 748 (5th Cir. 2009). 4 United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983). 5 United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465, 472 (2003) (citations omitted); see also Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996) (noting that the waiver may not be implied, but “must be unequivocally expressed in statutory text”). 6 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). 4 Case: 13-30094 Document: 00512349949 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/21/2013 No. 13-30094 accrued.7 As “limitations periods in statutes waiving sovereign immunity are jurisdictional,”8 plaintiffs’ failure to file their claims timely before the DOI would preclude a federal court from thereafter hearing those claims. The parties agree that we define accrual in this case according to federal law, asking “when the plaintiff[s] discover[ed], or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the fact of the injury and its cause.”9 Although several federal courts have addressed whether state law may indefinitely postpone the commencement of the running of prescription when the wrongful acts and damages are ongoing,10 that question remains open in this circuit.11 We do not reach it today, however, as we conclude that the tortious acts that plaintiffs allege do not constitute a continuing tort under Louisiana law.