Bautista v. United States
| Docket Number | CIVIL 2021-18 |
| Decision Date | 24 July 2023 |
| Parties | DEISY DAVILA BAUTISTA, as personal representative of the Estate of ANGIE ZUE BROOKS and as Guardian of JANNIEL BROOKS, a minor, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands |
Before the Court is Francis Brooks' motion for intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a). [ECF 67]. Plaintiffs and the United States oppose the motion [ECFs 80 81], and Mr. Brooks replied to the oppositions. [ECFs 82 83]. The Court heard oral argument on June 23, 2023 see [ECFs 85, 88], and the matter is ripe for decision. For the reasons explained below, the Court will deny the motion to intervene.
Deisy Bautista brought this Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) action as personal representative of Angie Zue Brooks and guardian of Janniel Brooks (“Baby Brooks”). [ECF 1]. Ms. Bautista is Angie's mother and the grandmother of Baby Brooks, and has been caring for Baby Brooks since his release from the hospital following his birth. [ECF 80] at 2-3. Mr. Brooks is Angie's spouse, and although named on the birth certificate, he is not the biological father of Baby Brooks. See [ECFs 67 at 8, 72-2].[1] The complaint asserts medical malpractice claims against the United States stemming from the alleged negligent prenatal care provided to Angie Brooks at St. Thomas East End Medical Center Corporation in January 2017. [ECF 1]. According to the complaint, as a result of defendants' negligence, Angie went into cardiac arrest during labor and hemorrhaged, causing permanent brain damage, and Baby Brooks suffered severe and permanent injury to his brain and body. Id. I 35. Angie was in a permanent vegetative state from the time of her injury until her death on October 30, 2019. Id. ¶¶ 7-8.
On October 25, 2017, the Superior Court entered an order appointing Ms. Bautista as the permanent unlimited guardian of Angie and Baby Brooks. [ECF 80-1]. That order provides Ms. Bautista “with unlimited power to make decisions concerning their health, support, care, education, and welfare.” Id. at 3. The order further provides that:
[Ms.] Bautista shall have power to have custody and control of Angie Zue Brooks and Janniel Brooks, including the management of all of their estates, paying debts, settling accounts, and applying for and receiving income payable to the wards or the wards' guardian, thereof during the legal continuance of the guardianship; and she is authorized and directed to take all steps necessary for the protection and advancement of the rights and interests of [the wards], until the guardian shall have been discharged according to law . . .
On August 29, 2019, Ms. Bautista filed administrative tort claims with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services seeking damages for the personal injuries suffered by Angie and Baby Brooks. [ECFs 29-1, 29-2]. The claims were denied on March 3, 2020. [ECF 81] at 2.
Plaintiffs filed this action on February 23, 2021. [ECF 1].[2] On November 2, 2021, the United States moved to dismiss this matter as untimely. [ECF 28]. That motion remains pending before the District Court. On January 19, 2023, the parties filed a joint notice of settlement. [ECF 64]. One month later, on February 21, 2023, Mr. Brooks filed his motion to intervene. [ECF 67].
Mr. Brooks argues that as the lawful spouse of decedent Angie Brooks, and the sole custodian and guardian of Baby Brooks, he is the real party in interest “in any and all matters related to the results, products, compensation, monetary or otherwise, relating to the death of his deceased wife.” [ECF 67] at 1. He thus contends that Ms. Bautista lacks standing to make any claims against the United States related to Angie's death, and that he is the proper person to act as personal representative and guardian in this action. Mr. Brooks further argues that he has a lawful and legal interest in the outcome of this case, that he and Angie's other children have interests not adequately represented by Ms. Bautista or her counsel,[3] and that his interest will be lost once the settlement documents are executed and funds dispersed. Id. at 3; [ECF 82] at 3-4.
At oral argument, Mr. Brooks testified under oath that Ms. Bautista never told him about any of the Superior Court proceedings. She told him about this action around September 2020, following his release from prison, but she was not very forthcoming with sharing information. He learned more about this case in late 2022 and obtained a copy of the complaint from the Clerk's Office. He then learned about the settlement in February 2023 by asking a friend to check the docket for him. Mr. Brooks expressed that he is seeking to intervene because he wants to take care of his family, and stated he has always been responsible for making sure the children were cared for, even during his incarceration.[4] In opposition, Ms. Bautista primarily relies on Virgin Islands Rule of Civil Procedure 17(e) to argue there is no benefit, reason, or law that would permit her to be substituted or replaced as the personal representative in this action. [ECF 80] at 5-7.5 She contends Mr. Brooks took no interest in Angie or Baby Brooks while incarcerated, and only moved to intervene here after the parties filed the notice of settlement. Id. at 4-5. Ms. Bautista further states neither she nor Baby Brooks will receive any money from the settlement because all funds, minus attorneys' fees and costs, will go to Medicare liens. Id. at 7. At oral argument, counsel emphasized that Ms. Bautista has been an active participant in this case, and that as the grandmother to all of Angie's children, she has an interest in all of them.
The United States opposes the motion on several grounds, first arguing that Mr. Brooks has offered no legitimate reason for the delay in filing his motion, and that “the untimeliness in moving to intervene will unduly delay these proceedings and prejudice [the parties].” [ECF 81] at 3,[5]. Additionally, Mr. Brooks has other recourse available to assert his purported interests. Id. at 5-6. The United States further argues that permissive intervention is also inappropriate because Mr. Brooks cannot show an independent basis for the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 610. Specifically, Mr. Brooks did not file an administrative claim on his own behalf and is time- barred from doing so now, and thus lacks standing to bring an FTCA action. Id. at 3.[6] The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Brooks' potential claims arising from the injuries to Angie and Baby Brooks. Id. Finally, the United States notes that the motion fails to comply with Rule 24(c)'s requirement to file a pleading setting forth the claim(s) for which intervention is sought. Id. at 4.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 provides that on timely motion, the Court must permit anyone to intervene who:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a).[7] The rule further provides that the Court may permit anyone to intervene who: “(A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or (B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b)(1). In exercising its direction to grant permissive intervention, “the court must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties' rights.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b)(3). The party seeking to intervene, whether as a matter of right or permissively, bears the burden of demonstrating that intervention is appropriate. United States v. Alcan Aluminum, Inc., 25 F.3d 1174, 1181 n.9 (3d Cir. 1994); Hoots v. Pennsylvania, 672 F.2d 1133, 1135 (3d Cir. 1982).
Additionally, a Rule 24 movant must serve on the parties a copy of his motion accompanied by a pleading setting forth the claim or defense for which intervention is sought. Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(c). Failure to comply with Rule 24(c)'s pleading requirement may result in summary dismissal of the motion. U.S. ex rel. Frank M. Sheesley Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 239 F.R.D. 404, 410 (W.D. Pa. 2006) (). However, courts have discretion to waive procedural defects and may do so based on “the merits of the motion itself, the lack of prejudice to the parties, and the principle that Rule 24 is intended simply to notice the parties as to the applicant's position and arguments.” Id. at 411 (collecting cases).
“As a sovereign, the United States is immune from suit unless it consents to be sued.” The FTCA represents “a limited waiver of th[at] sovereign immunity,” providing that “[t]he United States shall be liable, respecting . . . [certain] tort claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances.”
D.J.S.-W. by Stewart v. United States, 962 F.3d 745 749 (3d Cir. 2020) (alterations in original) (internal citations omitted); see 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) (). “[T]he FTCA does not itself create a substantive cause of action against the United States; rather, it provides a mechanism for bringing a state law tort action...
To continue reading
Request your trial