Cambridge Forest Apartments, Inc. v. United States

Decision Date29 December 1969
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 12992.
Citation307 F. Supp. 1191
PartiesCAMBRIDGE FOREST APARTMENTS, INC. v. The UNITED STATES of America.
CourtU.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.

ORDER

EDENFIELD, District Judge.

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

"An action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States for money damages for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, unless the claimant shall have first presented 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. The failure of any agency to make final disposition of a claim within six months after it is filed shall, at the option of the claimant any time thereafter, be deemed a final denial of the claim for purposes of this section. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to such claims as may be asserted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by third party complaint, cross-claim, or counterclaim."

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
5 cases
  • Smith v. United States, Civ. A. No. C-71-138.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee
    • April 29, 1971
    ...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.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia
    • March 11, 1974
    ...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
    • U.S. District Court — District of Montana
    • April 27, 1972
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • August 28, 1972
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT