James v. Ailes

ROY L. JAMES and ETHEL JAMES PLAINTIFFS v. ENOCH AILES, JR., et al. DEFENDANTS

No. 4:20-CV-124-DMB-JMV

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division

August 30, 2021

ORDER

DEBRA M. BROWN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Roy and Ethel James claim that the defendants' negligence caused Enoch Ailes Jr. to collide the commercial tractor/trailer he was driving while transporting U.S. mail into the automobile driven by Roy, resulting in severe bodily injuries to Roy. The Jameses seek to hold liable the United States of America based on a service contract executed by a U.S. Postal Service employee under which Enoch transported mail. The United States has filed three separate motions to dismiss, arguing that the Jameses failed to exhaust their administrative remedies as to certain claims and that the Jameses' claims against it are barred by sovereign immunity. Because the Court finds that Ethel failed to comply with exhaustion requirements and that the United States has not waived sovereign immunity with respect to Roy's claims, the claims against the United States will be dismissed.

I Procedural History

On July 20, 2020, Roy L. James and Ethel James filed a second amended complaint^[1] in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi against Enoch Ailes Jr.; Gwendolyn Ailes; Enoch Ailes, Jr. d/b/a B.H. Wellington Inc.; B.H. Wellington, Inc.; Donna Parks; the United States of America; and John Does 1 through 5. Doc. #5. The Jameses assert claims for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) arising from a vehicular accident between Roy and Enoch. Doc. #5. On September 21, 2020, the United States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679, substituted itself for Parks on the ground that “at the time of the conduct alleged, ... Parks was acting within the scope of her employment” with the United States Postal Service (“USPS”). Doc. #23 at 2.

On September 25, 2020, the United States filed a motion to dismiss Roy's claims with prejudice, asserting sovereign immunity and that the claims are “jurisdictionally barred by the doctrine of discretionary function.” Doc #24. The same day, the United States also moved to dismiss Ethel's claims with prejudice, arguing her failure to exhaust administrative remedies, sovereign immunity, and the statute of limitations. Doc. #26. Additionally, the United States submits that Ethel's claims “are derivative and subject to dismissal should the Court grant the United States' separate Motion to Dismiss” Roy's claims. Id. at 1. Briefing is complete on both the motion to dismiss Roy's claims^[2] and the motion to dismiss Ethel's claims.^[3] discovery.”^[4] Doc. #44 at 2. However, the order provided that the Jameses “may renew [their jurisdictional discovery request] on or before December 28 2020, by filing a motion that specifies the facts they contend are crucial to meet Defendants' motion to dismiss and the discovery requests they intend to serve, ” and explains how the information is relevant to the jurisdictional issue. Id.

Two weeks later, the Jameses timely filed “Plaintiffs' Motion Reurging Jurisdictional Discovery.” Doc. #46. After the motion was briefed^[5] and a hearing held, ^[6] Judge Virden denied the motion except for certain limited requests, finding that “the proposed discovery, including general reference to ‘depositions,' is not narrowly tailored to reveal materially relevant information necessary to resolve the pending motion to dismiss on grounds of immunity.” Doc. #51 at 1.

On March 1, 2021, the United States filed a supplemental motion to dismiss Roy's claims, arguing that Roy “failed to administratively exhaust his claims of negligent acts committed by United States Postal Service office employees.” Doc. #53. Roy responded to the motion, Doc. #55; the United States did not reply.

II Relevant Standards

The United States brings its motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Doc. #24 at 1; Doc. #26 at 1; Doc. #53 at 1.

Motions under Rule 12(b)(1) challenge a court's subject matter jurisdiction. A Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is characterized as either “facial” or “factual.” Superior MRI Servs., Inc. v. All. Healthcare Servs., Inc., 778 F.3d 502, 504 (5th Cir. 2015). Where, as here, evidentiary materials are submitted in support of the motion to dismiss, the attack is said to be factual. Id. “In assessing whether there is jurisdiction, courts may consider: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts.” Joiner v. United States, 955 F.3d 399, 403 (5th Cir. 2020).

“To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint does not need detailed factual allegations, but must prove the plaintiff's ground for entitlement to relief-including factual allegations in a complaint that when assumed to be true raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” White v. U.S. Corrections, L.L.C., 996 F.3d 302, 307 (5th Cir. 2021). A court must “accept all well-pled facts as true, construing all reasonable inferences in the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. But [the court] do[es] not accept as true conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal conclusions.” Id. at 306-07 (cleaned up).

III Factual Allegations

Enoch “operated a commercial Freightliner tractor and trailer on behalf of himself, Gwendolyn Ailes, Enoch Ailes, Jr. d/b/a B.H. Wellington, Inc. and B.H. Wellington, Inc.” (collectively, “Ailes Defendants”). Doc. #5 at 5. The Ailes Defendants “owned/leased” the tractor trailer and Enoch used it to transport mail for the USPS pursuant to a contract between B.H. Wellington and the USPS. Id. at 6-7; see Doc. #5-3.^[7] Donna Parks, as the USPS's Contracting Officer, executed the contract on the USPS's behalf.^[8] Doc. #5 at 8; see Doc. #5-3. Parks allowed B.H. Wellington to enter the contract “without first providing USPS with the required proof/verification of sufficient combined single limit liability insurance coverage ... as required by USPS.” Id. Parks also “failed to inspect, document and receive written verifiable proof of proper and sufficiently maintained vehicle(s) and equipment as required by USPS.” Id. at 8.

On February 9, 2018, while traveling “on his route on Highway 82 West, ” Enoch, who “was not paying attention to the traffic in front of him, nor the traffic beside him on his right side, as he began to pass [Roy], ” “crossed over the right center line and struck [Roy's] vehicle.” Id. at 6, 12. Enoch's vehicle “made contact with the left rear passenger door/rear wheel area of [Roy's] vehicle causing the collision and resulting in painful, severe, and life threatening injuries to” Roy. Id. at 11. At the time of the accident, Enoch was driving the tractor trailer at “63 miles per hour in inclement weather.” Id. at 12.

IV Exhaustion

Under the FTCA, before bringing a claim against the United States for money damages caused by the negligence of any employee of the government, a claimant must first “present[] the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by the agency in writing and sent by certified or registered mail.” 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). The claim must be “presented within two years after such claim accrues” or “be forever barred.” 28 U.S.C. § 2401. “A claim is properly presented within the meaning of § 2675(a) when the agency is given sufficient written notice to commence investigation and the claimant places a value on the claim.” Pleasant v. United States ex rel. Overton Brooks Veterans Admin. Hosp., 764 F.3d 445, 448 (5th Cir. 2014). As long as the government receives “actual written notice of the claim sufficient to enable [the agency] to investigate and to place a value on the claim[, t]he basic notice function of the administrative exhaustion requirement [is] satisfied.” Id. at 451.

A. Ethel's Loss of Consortium Claim

The second amended complaint alleges that “[a]s a direct and proximate result of the negligence, wrongful acts, and omissions by the Defendants, the Plaintiff, Ethel James, sustained loss of consortium and expenses in attending to her husband.” Doc. #5 at 20. The United States argues this Court lacks jurisdiction over Ethel's claims because Ethel “failed to file an administrative claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a)” and, because she failed to file an administrative claim within two years of the accident, her claim is barred. Doc. #27 at 6-7. Ethel responds that her claims should not be dismissed because “the damages for her derivative loss of consortium claim ($10, 000.00) was [sic] intended to be included in Mr. James SF95 administrative claim” and need not be brought as its own administrative claim. Doc. #34 at 5.

Roy submitted a Standard Form 95 (“SF-95”) to the USPS on December 5, 2019, providing details related to the accident and his injuries and placing a total value of $7 503, 000 on his claim. Doc. #26-1 at PageID 355. Although Roy's SF-95 does not refer to Ethel or her loss of consortium claim, it did (1) provide the USPS with notice of claims related to the accident sufficient to allow the USPS to investigate and (2) placed a value on the claims. The value placed on the claims is equivalent to what Roy and Ethel seek in the second amended complaint for their combined claims against the defendants. Compare Id. with Doc. #5 at 21. However, courts that have addressed whether a spouse's claim can be inferred from the allegations of the injured person “have routinely held that a spouse's loss of consortium claim must be separately exhausted in order [to] give the court subject-matter jurisdiction.” Storey v. United States, ...