Pugh et al v. United States Postal Service et al, No. 2:2017cv01907 - Document 16 (E.D. La. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting 12 Motion to Dismiss. For the foregoing reasons, the United States' motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against Joe Wyatt and the United States Postal Service are DISMISSED. The United States of America is hereby SUBSTITUTED for Wyatt and the United States Postal Service as defendant. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 12/12/2017. (cg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Pugh et al v. United States Postal Service et al Doc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA KYNISHA PUGH, ET AL. VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-190 7 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, ET AL. SECTION “R” (2) ORD ER AN D REASON S Before the Court is the United States’ m otion to dism iss claim s against Defendants J oe Wyatt and the United States Postal Service for lack of subject m atter jurisdiction. 1 For the following reasons, the Court grants the m otion. I. BACKGROU N D This case arises out of a m otor vehicle collision in New Orleans, Louisiana, on April 9, 20 14. 2 According to the com plaint, Defendant J oe Wyatt was driving a U.S. Postal Service delivery truck when he hit Plaintiff Kynisha Pugh’s car. 3 Plaintiffs Mia Salom on, J ohn Pugh, and Patricia Pugh 1 2 3 R. Doc. 12. R. Doc. 1 at 2. Id. Dockets.Justia.com were passengers in Ms. Pugh’s car. 4 Plaintiffs allege that they each suffered severe bodily injury because of the collision. 5 On March 3, 20 17, plaintiffs filed a com plaint for dam ages against J oe Wyatt and the U.S. Postal Service. 6 Plaintiffs later amended their com plaint to add as a defendant State Farm Mutual Autom obile Insurance Com pany. 7 The United States now m oves to dismiss the claim s against J oe Wyatt and the U.S. Postal Service for lack of subject m atter jurisdiction. 8 Plaintiffs have not responded to this m otion. II. D ISCU SSION Plaintiffs’ com plaint asserts that they suffered personal injuries because of the alleged negligence of a federal em ployee and a federal agency. 9 Under the Federal Torts Claim s Act (FTCA), such a claim m ust be brought against the United States, “and not the responsible agency or em ployee.” Galvin v. Occupational Safety & Health Adm in., 860 F.2d 181, 183 (5th Cir. 1988); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2679. “[A]n FTCA claim against a federal agency or em ployee as opposed to the United States itself m ust be dism issed 4 5 6 7 8 9 Id. Id. Id. at 1. R. Doc. 3. R. Doc. 12. R. Doc. 1 at 3. 2 for want of jurisdiction.” Id. Accordingly, plaintiffs cannot m aintain their claim s against Wyatt or the U.S. Postal Service. The statute further provides that: Upon certification by the Attorney General that the defendant em ployee was acting within the scope of his office or em ploym ent at the tim e of the incident out of which the claim arose, any civil action or proceeding com m enced upon such claim in a United States district court shall be deemed an action against the United States under the provisions of this title and all references thereto, and the United States shall be substituted as the party defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1). The Attorney General has delegated certification authority to the United States Attorney for the district where the civil action is brought. See 28 C.F.R. § 15.4. The Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana has certified that Wyatt was acting within the scope of his employm ent with the U.S. Postal Service at the tim e of the conduct alleged in plaintiffs’ com plaint. 10 The Court therefore dism isses Wyatt and the U.S. Postal Service as defendants in this m atter, and substitutes the United States as the proper party defendant. 10 R. Doc. 12-2. 3 III. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, the United States’ m otion to dism iss is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claim s against J oe Wyatt and the United States Postal Service are DISMISSED. The United States of America is hereby SUBSTITUTED for Wyatt and the United States Postal Service as defendant. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _12th _ day of Decem ber, 20 17. ___ _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
