Cuiriz-Lopez v. United States Navy

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VANESSA CUIRIZ-LOPEZ; and ) Case No.: 24-CV-2135-BEN-MSB STEVEN LOPEZ, ) 12 ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S Plaintiff, 13 ) MOTION TO DISMISS v. ) 14 ) [ECF No. 8] UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 ) Defendant. ) 16 ) 17 ) 18 INTRODUCTION 19 This action involves Plaintiff Steven Lopez’s claim for loss-of-consortium arising 20 from a collision involving his wife Vanessa Cuiriz-Lopez. Defendant’s motion focuses 21 on Lopez’s compliance with the procedural requirements of the Federal Tort Claims 22 Act’s (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C.§§ 2401(b) and 2675(a), and whether the United States Navy 23 is a proper defendant under the FTCA.1 24 BACKGROUND 25 On November 22, 2022, Ms. Cuiriz-Lopez was involved in a collision with 26 27 1 Ms. Cuiriz-Lopez’s negligence claim against the United States proceeds separately and 28 1 Defendant Hruby, who was acting within the scope of her employment with the Navy 2 Exchange Service Command. Due to Ms. Cuiriz-Lopez’s injuries, Lopez seeks damages 3 for loss-of-consortium. 4 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 5 Plaintiffs originally filed their Complaint in the Superior Court of California, County 6 of San Diego (Case No. 24CUO19255C), on October 24, 2024 alleging negligence (Ms. 7 Cuiriz-Lopez) and loss-of-consortium (Lopez) against Hruby and the United States Navy. 8 On November 14, 2024, the Navy removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 9 U.S.C.§ 1442(a)(1). Defendant filed a Notice of Substitution accompanied by the 10 Attorney General’s delegee’s certification that Hurby was acting within the scope of her 11 employment at the time of the accident. This Court approved the substitution on 12 November 20, 2024. Defendant subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 13, 13 2025. 14 LEGAL STANDARD 15 A motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) challenges the Court’s subject- 16 matter jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only the 17 power authorized by the Constitution and federal statutes. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life 18 Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.375, 377 (1994). Subject-matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue 19 that cannot be forfeited or waived. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S.500, 514 (2006). 20 A party may raise a jurisdictional challenge at any stage of litigation. See Id. at 506 21 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(h)(3)). Jurisdiction is presumed absent unless the 22 party asserting it affirmatively demonstrates its existence. See Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 23 377. The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction is proper, even when 24 the defendant moves to dismiss. Liggett v. Utah Higher Educ. Assistance Auth., No.8:19- 25 cv-01589-JLS-ADS, 2020 WL 1972286, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb.3, 2020); see also Sopcak 26 v. N. Mountain Helicopter Serv., 52 F.3d 817, 818 (9th Cir.1995). If the Court 27 determines it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, dismissal of the claim is mandatory. Fed. 28 R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 1 DISCUSSION 2 Federal Tort Claims Act 3 1. Waiver of Sovereign Immunity & Exclusive Remedy 4 The FTCA waives the United States’ sovereign immunity for certain tort claims 5 “under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the 6 claimant” under applicable state law. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). It provides the exclusive 7 remedy for tortious conduct by federal employees acting within the scope of their 8 employment. 28 U.S.C. § 2679; FDIC v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998). 9 2. Proper Defendant 10 Under the FTCA, “[t]he United States is the only proper defendant.” Lance v. 11 United States, 70 F.3d 1093, 1095 (9th Cir. 1995). Federal agencies, such as the United 12 States Navy, cannot be sued eo nomine under the FTCA absent explicit statutory 13 authorization, which is not present here. Allen v. Veterans Admin., 749 F.2d 1386, 1388 14 (9th Cir. 1984). 15 Here, Plaintiffs named the United States Navy as a defendant. Because the FTCA 16 designates the United States as the only proper defendant, the Navy must be dismissed 17 from this action. Additionally, following the Attorney General’s delegee’s certification 18 that Hruby acted within the scope of her employment, the United States was statutorily 19 substituted for Ms. Hruby under 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1); Pauly v. USDA, 348 F.3d 1143, 20 1150–51 (9th Cir. 2003). This substitution, approved by the Court, requires dismissal of 21 Hruby from the case. See Id. 22 3. Exhaustion Requirement 23 The FTCA bars suits against the United States unless the claimant first presents an 24 administrative claim and receives a final denial or waits six months without a decision. 25 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 111–13 (1993). This 26 exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional and non-waivable. Jerves v. United States, 996 27 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1992). Additionally, under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), the 28 administrative claim must be submitted within two years of the claim’s accrual. Failure | to comply with this deadline precludes federal court jurisdiction. Brady v. United States, 2 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 1995). Plaintiffs must affirmatively allege and prove 3 compliance with these timeliness requirements. Gillespie v.Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 640 4 (9th Cir. 1980). Here, Lopez did not file an administrative claim with the Navy for his > || 1oss-of-consortium claim within the two-year period following the collision. Because 6 Lopez failed to timely present his claim, the Court lacks jurisdiction over his loss-of- 7 || consortium claim. 8 || CONCLUSION ? Lopez failed to file and exhaust an administrative claim for loss of consortium 10 || within the two years required by 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), rendering his claim time-barred and depriving this Court of subject-matter jurisdiction. Further, the United States Navy is 12 |lnota proper defendant under the FTCA, as the United States is the sole permissible 13 || defendant. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as 14 || follows: 15 || 1. Lopez’s loss-of-consortium claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for lack of 16 subject-matter jurisdiction. 17 || 2. The United States Navy is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE from this lawsuit. 18 3. Cuiriz-Lopez’s negligence claim against the United States remains pending. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. ( " 20 || DATED: March 7, 2025 21 HON.ROGER T.BENITEZ 59 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 _4-