Claude v. United States, No. C00-3010-MWB (N.D. Iowa 4/12/2001)
| Decision Date | 12 April 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. C00-3010-MWB.,C00-3010-MWB. |
| Parties | ORDEAN R. CLAUDE and MARCELLA M. CLAUDE, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and CHRISTOPHER SMOLA, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
This matter is before the court pursuant to defendant's, United States of America ("United States"), February 23, 2001, Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment in Favor of the United States (#57). In support of these motions, defendant United States asserts the following: If plaintiffs' complaint is construed as involving an express or implied contract with the United States, exclusive jurisdiction for this claim lies with the Court of Federal Claims; if plaintiffs' complaint is construed as an action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), recovery is barred because plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisite of filing an administrative claim with the agency, and the actions that form the basis of plaintiffs' complaint meet the discretionary function exception to the limited waiver of sovereign immunity provided by the FTCA; and if plaintiffs' complaint is construed as alleging interference with contract rights, recovery is barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). On February 28, 2001, plaintiffs filed a resistance to defendant's motion, asking that the case not be dismissed. Additionally, plaintiffs ask that this court reconsider United States Magistrate Judge Zoss's prior Order denying plaintiffs' request for a settlement conference.1
In February of 1999, the plaintiffs, Ordean and Marcella Claude (hereinafter referred to as the "Claudes"), owned a single family dwelling located at 1300 Seneca Street in Webster City, Iowa. At that time, the Claudes inquired about the possibility of obtaining federal grant funds from the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") office of Rural Development to make repairs to the roof of their dwelling. An initial inspection of the home revealed that the roof was leaking and had already caused damage to the interior of the Claudes' home. By letter dated February 17, 1999, the Claudes were notified that they were found to be qualified recipients of the grant money and were told to solicit bids for the needed repairs. The Claudes, therefore, obtained four bids and on March 18, 1999, signed a contract with contractor Christopher Smola, because he made the lowest bid.
It was later discovered, however, that Mr. Smola was not insured in connection with the roofing work. Moreover, at one point, while Mr. Smola was working on the roof, he apparently tore off part of the shingles and placed some type of protective covering on the roof. The protective covering that Mr. Smola placed on the Claudes' roof was not sufficiently secured, because after heavy rains, water leaked into the house, and allegedly caused additional damage. Mr. Smola failed to complete the roofing work on the Claudes' home in a timely fashion, and when the deadline under the contract for Mr. Smola to complete the work had passed, the Claudes hired a new and different contractor, namely, Jack Pelz, to complete the work. After obtaining the Claudes' signature indicating that the repair work was completed to their satisfaction, Rural Development employees released the grant funds to Mr. Pelz. Mr. Smola was not paid by Rural Development.
On November 20, 1999, and December 10, 1999, the Claudes sent letters to USDA Rural Development alleging that their civil rights were violated and that they were going to go to court, asking for $15,000.00 in damages, and $25,000.00 in punitive damages. In response to those letters, Ellen King Huntoon, State Director for Rural Development, by letter dated December 16, 1999, stated, among other things, that See Defendant's Exhibit N. Thereafter, on January 11, 2000, the Claudes filed suit in Hamilton County District Court against three USDA Rural Development employees and the original contractor, Mr. Smola. Because the three Rural Development employees were acting within the scope of their employment, defendant United States was substituted for those three employees and, on January 31, 2000, removed the case from state court to this court. Presently, the United States asserts several reasons for dismissal of the Claudes' complaint; its reasons, however, are contingent upon how the Claudes' complaint is construed by this court. In other words, defendant United States sets forth different reasons supporting dismissal in this case based on whether the Claudes' complaint is construed as a contract action or as a tort action. Therefore, the court must examine the Claudes' complaint.
In their complaint, the Claudes2 allege the following:
(1) We file this complaint on these defendants in District court for negligence in accepting the Contractor that they approved to do the job of roofing on the Claude's home located at 1300-Seneca Street in Webster City, Iowa, causing considerable damage inside their home.
(2) Also for interfering with the work, causing trouble between the contractor and the Claude's, so he could go to the other defendants to get his way, to try and not have to do the job, and still get paid for it. This all started just after the first of April and lasted clear up too the 1st of June, at which time his contract ran out and he still hadn't finished the roof.
(3) Mary Beth Juergens, Karen K. Reuter, did harass the Claude and humiliated them, causing Mental Distress, and making a nuisance of themselves, adding more fuel to the fire, as they say. As for Randy Hildreth, he said he's speak to them about it, but if he did, it didn't do any good, because they kept it up.
(4) Contractor didn't care if he did the work or not after getting the job. But the Claude's was told by Mary Beth and Karen K. that, they couldn't do nothing about it till his time was up. The contractor took off one side of the upper part of the house and never covered it right and it rained in and ruined the upstairs and came clear down threw to the lower floor, ruining the carpet and the floor under it. It ruined every room except the bedroom. He didn't care. He left it like that for a week or longer, and these workers just sat and laughed at it. So the Claude's had to sit and do nothing about it. Because the Contractor wouldn't listen to the Claude's, he told them that he was taking his orders from Mary Beth Juergens and Karen K. Reuter and they told him, he could get on the Claude's roof anytime, even with no Insurance.
(5) So, because of all that was said and done. The Claudes is seeking $25,000.00 in damages, plus the cost for them to pack and storing all their belongings, and for cost to relocate to live for whatever time it takes to repair their home and for moving back in, for all court cost and legal fees, Plus $250,000.00 PUNITIVE DAMAGES, for past, present, and future damages, and for the Health hazard they're making us live in. We are unable to move or fix our home, because we only have our Social Security to live on.
(6) We only wanted to get our roof reshingled and ended up with our home ruined.
Plaintiffs' Complaint. The court concludes that the acts complained of by the Claudes are properly construed as torts brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Specifically, the court extracts from the Claudes' complaint the following claims: negligence, tortious interference with contract, and tortious infliction of severe emotional distress.3 Accordingly, the court will address only the reasons asserted by defendant United States for dismissal of the Claudes' complaint as construed as a tort action, which include the following: the Claudes' failure to satisfy the jurisdictional pre-requisite of filing an administrative claim with the agency; the actions that form the basis of the Claudes' complaint meet the discretionary function exception to the limited waiver of sovereign immunity provided by the FTCA; and, the Claudes' recovery is barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h).
Initially, the court must determine which standard of review it will apply in this case. The United States has moved pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) () and 12(b)(6) (), and, in the alternative, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. While dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is appropriate at any time, technically a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) must be filed prior to any responsive pleading, such as an answer. See Westcott v. City of Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir. 1990). Here, on April 10, 2000, the United States filed an answer and, thus, the United States' Rule 12(b)(6) motion should have been brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).4 Aware of this technicality, the court decided to treat the United States' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as one for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, on March 14, 2001, this court notified the parties that the United States' motion to dismiss would be treated as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.5 While the court admittedly did not specifically indicate in the Order that it was only treating the United States' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, that was its intent. The court is fully aware of the differences...
To continue reading
Request your trial