Cambridge Forest Apartments, Inc. v. United States
Decision Date | 29 December 1969 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 12992. |
Citation | 307 F. Supp. 1191 |
Parties | CAMBRIDGE FOREST APARTMENTS, INC. v. The UNITED STATES of America. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
Mitchell, Clarke, Pate & Anderson, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff.
John W. Stokes, Jr., U. S. Atty., Beverly B. Bates, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for defendant.
Plaintiff has brought this action under the Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), to recover the value of personalty owned by plaintiff which has allegedly been misappropriated, damaged or destroyed by the United States, as well as the rental value of its personal property under four leases, and to secure injunctive relief preventing a change in the status of plaintiff's personalty, pending the outcome of this action.
The defendant has filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction to afford injunctive relief against the Government and because of plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Because of our determination that jurisdiction is absent under the Tort Claims Act, at this point in time, we need not consider whether the court lacks power to issue the injunctive relief sought.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a), as amended July 18, 1966:1
Prior to its amendment, it had been recognized that the filing of an administrative claim under § 2675(a) was not a prerequisite to maintaining a civil action in federal court under the Tort Claims Act. Schlingman v. United States, 229 F.Supp. 454 (S.D.Cal. 1963); Whistler v. United States, 252 F.Supp. 913 (D.C.Ind. 1966). Nor did the language of § 2675(a), prior to its amendment, compel a contrary result.2 However, the present language of the statute, and the case law interpreting it, make it crystal clear that it is now a prerequisite to the filing or maintaining of a civil action under the Tort Claims Act that an administrative claim under §...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. United States, Civ. A. No. C-71-138.
...States, 229 F.Supp. 454 (D.C.Cal., 1963); Gutelius v. United States, 312 F.Supp. 51 (D.C.Va., 1970); Cambridge Forest Apartments, Inc. v. United States, 307 F.Supp. 1191 (D.C.Ga.1969); Staley v. United States, 306 F.Supp. 521 (D.C. Pa., 1969); but see Whistler v. United States, 252 F.Supp. ......
-
Young v. United States, Civ. A. No. 1161.
...States, 443 F.2d 1047 (3rd Cir.); Best Bearings Company v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177 (7th Cir.); Cambridge Forest Apartments, Inc. v. United States, 307 F.Supp. 1191 (N.D., Ga.); Hlavac v. United States, 356 F.Supp. 1274 (N.D., Ill.); Robinson v. United States Navy, 342 F.Supp. 381 (E.D.......
-
Magellsen v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
...United States, 443 F.2d 1047 (3rd Cir. 1971); Gutelius v. United States, 312 F.Supp. 51 (E.D.Va. 1970); Cambridge Forest Apartments, Inc. v. United States, 307 F.Supp. 1191 (N.D.Ga.1969); Staley v. United States, 306 F.Supp. 521 (M.D.Pa.1969). All of these cases admit that the pre-1966 amen......
-
Turtzo v. United States
...v. United States, 443 F.2d 1047 (3d Cir. 1971); Garland v. United States, 310 F.Supp. 225 (W.D.Mo.1970); Cambridge Forest Apartments v. United States, 307 F.Supp. 1191 (N.D.Ga.1969); Gunstream v. United States, 307 F.Supp. 366 (C.D.Cal.1969); Beavers v. United States, 291 F.Supp. 856 (S.D.T......