United States Liability Insurance Company v. Kathleen Sebelius et al
Filing
12
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Dale S. Fischer Response to Order to Show Cause due by plaintiff by 5/18/2012. See Minute Order for specifics. (dp)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
Title
Date
CV 12-2516 DSF (VBKx)
5/10/12
United States Liability Insurance Co. v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, et al.
Present: The Honorable
DALE S. FISCHER, United States District Judge
Debra Plato
Deputy Clerk
Not present
Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not present
Not present
Proceedings:
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AGAINST DEFENDANT
SEBELIUS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction” and “possess only that power
authorized by [the] Constitution and statute . . . .” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,
511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal
Government and its agencies from suit.” FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994).
“The doctrine of sovereign immunity applies to . . . federal employees acting within their
official capacities.” Hodge v. Dalton, 107 F.3d 705, 707 (9th Cir. 1997). An express
statutory waiver of sovereign immunity is a prerequisite to federal-court jurisdiction. See
Meyer, 510 U.S. at 475; Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996); Tobar v. United States,
639 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2011). Statutory waivers are narrowly construed. See
Lane, 518 U.S. at 192. “Unless [the plaintiff] satisfies the burden of establishing that its
action falls within an unequivocally expressed waiver of sovereign immunity by
Congress, it must be dismissed.” Dunn & Black, P.S. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1084,
1088 (9th Cir. 2007).
Plaintiff’s Complaint states that its interpleader action is proper under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2410. (Compl. ¶ 2.) Section 2410 waives the sovereign immunity of the United States
in any civil action or suit in any district court, or in any State court having
jurisdiction of the subject matter –
(1) to quiet title to,
MEMORANDUM
Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
(2) to foreclose a mortgage or other lien upon,
(3) to partition,
(4) to condemn, or
(5) of interpleader or in the nature of interpleader with respect to,
real or personal property on which the United States has or claims a mortgage or
other lien.
28 U.S.C. § 2410(a). It is well established that the terms of § 2410’s waiver of sovereign
immunity are narrowly construed. See Dunn & Black, 492 F.3d at 1092; Hughes v.
United States, 953 F.2d 531, 537-38 (9th Cir. 1992); Bertie’s Apple Valley Farms v.
United States, 476 F.2d 291, 292 (9th Cir. 1973). Section 2410’s waiver does not apply
if the government claims a title interest rather than a lien interest in the subject property.
See, e.g., Bertie’s Apple Valley Farms, 476 F.2d at 292 (concluding that sovereign
immunity barred the action where the government claimed an interest in land based on an
order of the Referee in Bankruptcy for the District of Idaho, who confirmed a sale by the
trustee to the Small Business Administration); Taylor v. United States, 2011 WL
1843286, at *3 (D. Ariz. May 16, 2011) (citing Dunn & Black, 492 F.3d at 1093)
(concluding that sovereign immunity barred the action where the government’s claim was
based on a federal law providing that it could reduce a person’s federal income tax
returns to offset the person’s debts).
Plaintiff’s interpleader action is based, in part, on the claim that the United States is
entitled to reimbursement for medical expenses pursuant to the Medicare Secondary
Payer (MSP) Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395y et seq. (Compl. ¶ 7.) Defendant Sebelius
specifically clarifies that Medicare has a right to, not a lien interest in, reimbursement
under the MSP Act. (See Defendant Sebelius Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss at 4 & n.3.)
Thus, it does not appear that § 2410 applies to waive the government’s sovereign
immunity in this case.
As it appears that the action against Sebelius is likely barred by sovereign
immunity, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause, in writing not to exceed 10 pages, on or
before May 18, 2012, why this action should not be dismissed as to Sebelius for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff should also address whether the action must or
should be remanded if Sebelius is dismissed. Defendants are ordered to file a response,
not to exceed 10 pages, on or before May 25, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MEMORANDUM
Page 2 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
MEMORANDUM
Page 3 of 3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
