Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Heather Johnson; Robert Johnson; and Mary Jane Dean v. United States of America

February 21, 2012

HEATHER JOHNSON; ROBERT JOHNSON; AND MARY JANE DEAN,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant the United States of America ("USA") moves to dismiss the claims of Plaintiff Mary Jane Dean ("DEAN") for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dean opposes the motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants the motion to dismiss Dean as a party with prejudice.

BACKGROUND

This is one of several actions pending before this court and involving the crash of a Navy/Marine Corps F/A-18 jet in a residential area near the Marine Corps Air Station Miramar on December 8, 2008. (Compl. ¶18). Plaintiff Dean's home is in the vicinity of the crash site. Her home suffered property damage. (Braley Decl. Exh. A).

On September 21, 2009 Dean filed an administrative claim with the Department of the Navy using Standard Form 95 ("SF 95"). The administrative claim identified property damage in the amount of $9,900 and in the section provided for personal injury claims, Plaintiff responded N/A ("Not Applicable"). Id. Immediately before the signature, the SF 95 provides: "I CERTIFY THAT THE MOUNT OF CLAIM COVERS ONLY DAMAGES AND INJURIES CAUSED BY THE ACCIDENT ABOVE AND AGREE TO ACCEPT SAID AMOUNT IN FULL SATISFACTION AND FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THIS CLAIM." Id. Dean executed the SF 95. Id.

On or about November 9, 2009 the Department of the Navy approved the settlement and provided Dean with an Approval of Claim and Settlement Agreement ("Settlement Agreement"). Dean executed the Settlement Agreement on November 2nd and the USA on November 24, 2009. Among other things, the Settlement Agreement provides that the parties agree "to settle and compromise each and every claim of any kind, whether known or unknown, arising directly or indirectly from the acts or omissions that gave rise" to Dean's claim. (Id. ¶1). The Settlement Agreement also provided that the payment of $9,900 would satisfy the entirety of Dean's claim including "foreseen and unforeseen bodily and personal injuries." (Id. ¶4). The Settlement Agreement also specifically referred to California Civil Code Section 1542 (providing that a general release does not extend to unknown claims); and Dean expressly waived the limitations of a general release under Civil Code §1542. The provision also advised Dean that she could consult with an attorney prior to signing the agreement. Id.

One year later, on November 26, 2010, Dean submitted a second SF 95 seeking additional compensation for the injuries sustained on December 8, 2008. (Braley Decl. Exh. C). Dean sought $600,000 for her personal injuries. Id. By letter dated December 22, 2010, the Department of the Navy denied the claim noting that the Settlement Agreement satisfied Dean's claims. (Braley Decl. Exh. D).

In light of the above identified factual record, USA moves for dismissal of Dean's action on the ground that federal law prevents Dean from asserting any claim encompassed within the Settlement Agreement. Dean opposes the motion.

DISCUSSION

The FTCA

The FTCA provides for a limited waiver of sovereign immunity. Se 28 U.S.C. §§2671 et seq. As a prerequisite to filing suit, a claimant must pursue and complete the administrative claims procedures. 28 U.S.C. §2675(a). "The FTCA bars claimants from bringing suit in federal court until they have exhausted their administrative remedies." McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). The administrative claim requirement is jurisdictional and cannot be waived. Id.

Once a claim is favorably adjudicated, claimant cannot pursue a claim against the United States. Schwarder v. United States, 974 F.2d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 1992). In Schwarder, the Ninth Circuit discussed the applicability of state law to FTCA actions. While recognizing that state law complements the FTCA, the Ninth Circuit concluded, "as a matter of federal law, that an administrative settlement reached pursuant to section 2672 bars further claims by the settling party, without regard to the effect it would have as a matter of state law." Id. The applicable FTCA provision provides:

The acceptance by the claimant of any such award, compromise, or settlement shall be final and conclusive on the claimant, and shall constitute a complete release of any claim against the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.