Page 1
Ninth Circuit:
Lack of Sum Certain in Claim Robbed Court of Jurisdiction
Failure to Present Exact Amount to Administrative Agency due to Ongoing Care Deprived Court of Ability to Decide Case, Bumatay Writes Separately to Complain of Courts Treating Requirement as Jurisdictional
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a personal injury claim by plaintiffs suing the federal government after a car accident with an employee of the U.S. Postal Service where the injured parties failed to state the exact amount of damages—due to ongoing treatment—on the form submitted to the federal agency before filing suit.
In a memorandum opinion, filed Monday, the court found that the claim presentation requirement, set forth in 28 U.S.C. §2675(a), entails a plaintiff making a demand for a “sum certain” and have the claim denied, before filing suit in federal court.
The case was heard before Circuit Judges Mark J. Bennett and Patrick J. Bumatay and Senior Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas. Their affirms the dismissal by District Court Magistrate Judge Virginia Kay DeMarchi of the Northern District of California of the personal injury claim
Bumatay wrote separately to express a concern that the case law in this area may be ripe for reconsideration, saying:
“In recent times, courts have been reevaluating whether past decisions holding a particular statutory requirement ‘jurisdictional’ remains good law….It may be time for the Federal Torts Claim Act’s…exhaustion requirement to step into the spotlight.”
Traffic Accident
Appealing the dismissal were plaintiffs Miguel and Teresa Castro. On April 11, 2020, Miguel Castro was driving, with Teresa Castro in the passenger seat when, according to their complaint, they collided with a marked mail truck driven by Angel Montelongo Jr. after he made a sudden and unsafe U-turn in front of them.
On Aug. 5, 2020, the plaintiffs each submitted claims to the USPS pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2675(a), which provides in part:
“An action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States for money damages for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by the agency in writing….”
The claim forms asserted property damage in the amount of $4,766.89. However, on the line asking for the amount of their personal injury claim, the Castros wrote, “To be determined. Still treating.” On Jan. 31, 2022, the USPS denied the Castros’ claims in writing for failure to respond to requests for further documentation.
The Castros filed suit on March 23, 2022, asserting a single negligence claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) and seeking monetary damages for personal injuries and property damage. The U.S. moved for partial summary judgment with respect to the personal injury damages.
DeMarchi granted the motion, saying that “[t]his Court retains jurisdiction over the portion of this action that concerns the Castros’ property damage claim, but it lacks jurisdiction over the portion that concerns their claim for personal injury damages.” She entered final judgment in favor of the U.S., following compensation to the plaintiffs and a stipulation of the parties.
Jurisdictional Requirement
The panel noted that the claims presentation requirement is jurisdictional and pointed to the 1984 Ninth Circuit decision in Warren v. U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management as providing the standard for determining whether a claim has been presented under §2675(a).
In Warren, Circuit Judge Otto Richard Skopil (now deceased) wrote that a claim is deemed presented when a party files “(1) a written statement sufficiently describing the injury to enable the agency to begin its own investigation, and (2) a sum certain damages claim.”
The plaintiffs do not dispute that they failed to allege a sum certain in the form submitted to USPS, but argue that the requirement is not found in the text of the statute itself. Unpersuaded, the panel wrote that “[g]iven the clarity of the law in our circuit, we needn’t inquire any further to dispose of this argument.”
Impossible Task
The Castros further contend that because their personal injury damages were uncertain at the time of filing, it was not possible for them to have placed a specific value on the form.
Unpersuaded, the panel remarked that “[t]his argument overlooks the flexibility provided by the FTCA in giving claimants ample opportunity to amend their claims as the evidence develops” and ignores case law holding that ongoing medical treatment does not exempt a party from “the jurisdictional obligation to present a claim for a sum certain to the appropriate agency.”
The jurists declared:
“[T]he Castros need only have presented some specific valuation…to the USPS, and their failure to do so means they did not present their claim and consequently did not exhaust their administrative remedies. The Castros’ failure to present their personal injury claims to the USPS prior to filing their complaint in the district court precluded the district court from having jurisdiction over their personal injury claims.”
Concurring Opinion
Bumatay expressed his concern over the jurisdictional nature of the requirement, writing:
“The FTCA requires claimants to exhaust all available administrative remedies before filing a suit in federal court….Our court has repeatedly described this exhaustion requirement as ‘jurisdictional’ and, thus, unwaivable.”
Commenting that the Ninth Circuit decisions holding that the requirement is jurisdictional “reached the conclusion without really explaining why,” he noted that the proposition is at odds with U.S. Supreme Court cases distinguishing between a jurisdictional requirement and a mandatory claim-processing rule.
He explained that claim-processing rules are intended to promote the orderly process of litigation and may be mandatory without being jurisdictional. The jurist said:
“Ultimately, the question of whether an exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional or claim-processing is one of statutory interpretation….And the Court strictly abides by the principle that a rule is only jurisdictional if Congress clearly states it is.”
Clear, Plain Language
Finding the requirement to be a “quintessential” claim-processing rule, Bumatay wrote:
“A jurisdictional requirement can only be established by clear and plain language. Section 2675(a) doesn’t have such language….Rather, the statute imposes restrictions on a would-be plaintiff that must be complied with before a claim can be presented to the district court.”
Under these circumstances, he said:
“So Congress needs to be explicit when it establishes a jurisdictional rule. Congress didn’t do so here and thus our court is wrong to classify § 2675(a) as jurisdictional. This mistake has consequences….While this error changes nothing here, it’s significant enough to warrant correction in an appropriate case.”
The case is Castro v. United States, 23-15841.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company