Gunstream v. United States
Decision Date | 29 December 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 69-685-R.,69-685-R. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
Parties | Robbie S. GUNSTREAM, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
Robert C. Proctor, Weinstein, Shelley & Proctor, Alhambra, Cal., for plaintiff.
Wm. Matthew Byrne, Jr., U. S. Atty., Frederick M. Brosio, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief of Civil Division, Eugene Kramer, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant.
Plaintiff Robbie S. Gunstream was operating a 1963 Volkswagen in El Monte, California on April 22, 1967.
While driving northbound on Peck Road and its intersection with McBean, plaintiff's car collided with a United States Post Office Truck driven by an employee of the United States Post Office. Defendant has admitted employment and scope of employment.
At the time of the collision plaintiff was 22 years of age.
On August 24, 1967 Claim For Damage or Injury was filed with the Post Office Department by Syrell S. Gunstream and Dorothy E. Gunstream for alleged injuries and property damage arising out of the collision of April 22, 1967. On the same date the Inter-Insurance Exchange of the Auto Club of Southern California filed a claim for property damage to said 1963 Volkswagen.
On November 22, 1967 Syrell S. Gunstream was advised of deficiencies in his claim and specifically pointing out:
Property damage claims were settled and paid by the Post Office Department.
On April 10, 1969 plaintiff filed his action in this Court.
On May 8, 1969 plaintiff Robbie S. Gunstream filed an Amended Claim For Damage or Injury.
The action is at issue and now comes before the Court on defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
There is no dispute in the facts and therefore the Motion for Summary Judgment can be decided by the Court upon the disputed interpretation of the claim requirements of the Federal Tort Claims Act.
The Federal Tort Claims Act as amended effective July 18, 1966 is explicit in the requirements for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court to hear personal injury claims against a United States governmental agency.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2675 provides in its pertinent part:
Plaintiff argues that the claims filed August 24, 1967 are in substantial compliance with the requirements of the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Pursuant to the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 2672, the claim procedure for an administrative claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act is implemented by 28 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 14. A review of these regulations makes apparent the deficiencies of the August 24 claim.
A review of the August 24 claim discloses it is completely devoid of representative capacity by the claimants therein Syrell S. Gunstream and Dorothy E. Gunstream. If, as plaintiff claims, this was in fact his claim, the deficiencies had not been corrected at the time of the filing of the complaint herein even though they were called to the attention of his parents by letter of the Post Office Department dated November 22, 1967.
There is still another compelling reason why the August 24 claim is totally inadequate to invoke the jurisdiction...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lunsford v. United States
...however, that plaintiffs' compliance with section 2675 was insufficient. Defendant directs the court's attention to Gunstream v. United States, 307 F.Supp. 366 (C.D.Cal.1969); and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. National Association of Flood Insurers, 378 F.Supp. 1339 (M.D.Pa. 1974), aff'd ......
-
Commonwealth of Pa. v. National Ass'n of Flood Insurers
...owners, either in documentary or statutory form, the letter did not amount to a valid administrative claim. Gunstream v. United States, 307 F.Supp. 366, 368 (C.D. Cal.1969). Finally, the Denenberg letter failed as a legal administrative claim because it did not present a claim for money dam......
-
Lunsford v. U.S.
...strict compliance with technicalities has been required. Heaton v. United States, 383 F.Supp. 589 (S.D.N.Y.1974); Gunstream v. United States, 307 F.Supp. 366 (C.D.Cal.1969).11 We note that even though the plaintiffs' motion to strike was not made within the time limits established by Fed.R.......
-
Com. of Pennsylvania, by Sheppard v. National Ass'n of Flood Insurers
...authority to present claims on behalf of unnamed property owners. 28 C.F.R. § 14.3(e); 24 C.F.R. § 17.3(e). See Gunstream v. United States, 307 F.Supp. 366, 368 (C.D.Cal.1969). In contesting the rejection of its "claim" made on behalf of a class, the Commonwealth asserts that these administ......