Perrodin v. U.S.

• Decision Date: 19 November 2004
• Docket Number: No. 2:04-0112-23.,2:04-0112-23.
• Citation: 350 F.Supp.2d 706
• Parties: James M. PERRODIN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina

350 F.Supp.2d 706

James M. PERRODIN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.

No. 2:04-0112-23.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina.

November 19, 2004.

John Hughes Cooper, Sullivans Island, SC, Cain Denny, Nancy A. Chiles, Nancy A. Chiles Law Office, Charleston, SC, for plaintiff.

Peter F. Frost, U.S. Department of Justice, Torts Branch Civil Division, for defendant.

ORDER

DUFFY, District Judge.

This matter is before the court upon Defendant United States of America's (hereinafter "Government") motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3). For the reasons set forth herein, the Government's motion is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

The events in this complaint occurred on board the M/V CAPE EDMONT, a public vessel of the Government. On February 8, 2002, the Government removed Plaintiff James M. Perrodin ("Perrodin") for cause from his position as Chief Steward aboard the M/V CAPE EDMONT. Perrodin was discharged for improper food handling when two officers became sick after eating a meal prepared by him. The Government states that on several previous occasions, it reprimanded Perrodin for employing improper food handling procedures. Perrodin contends that he had a sample of the disputed meal tested and an outside laboratory determined that the meal was not poisoned. Perrodin also alleges that after he was fired, the Government's agents "spread the word" to the vessel's crew members, as well as crew members of another ship, that Perrodin was fired for food poisoning. (Compl. ¶ 30.) On January 13, 2004, Perrodin filed a complaint for defamation against the Government under the Suits in Admiralty Act ("SIAA"), 46 U.S.C. app. § 741 et seq. On September 15, 2004, the Government filed this motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Perrodin has responded, and thus disposition of the motion is appropriate.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

When evaluating a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) on the grounds that the complaint fails to state facts upon which jurisdiction can be found, "all the facts alleged in the complaint are assumed to be true and the plaintiff, in effect, is afforded the same procedural protection as he would receive under a Rule 12(b)(6) consideration." Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, 1219 (4th Cir.1982). The plaintiff has the burden of proving jurisdiction, and the court may go beyond the face of the complaint and consider evidence without converting the motion into one for summary judgment. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R. Co. v. U.S., 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir.1991).¹

III. DISCUSSION

The Government's arguments in support of dismissal are hinged on broad principles of sovereign immunity contained in several federal statutes, including the SIAA and the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"). As the Government points out, the FTCA expressly retains sovereign immunity for defamation claims asserted by private parties against the government. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). Thus, if a plaintiff sues the government for defamation under the FTCA, that claim would be barred. While the SIAA contains no similar language making the government immune from defamation claims, the Government contends that "the defamation exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the FTCA should be imputed to the SIAA." (Gov. Mem. at 2).

The Government argues that the defamation exception to the FTCA should be incorporated into the SIAA to bar this suit for three reasons. First, the Government contends that courts have recognized that several other FTCA exceptions should be imputed to the SIAA. For example, the Government notes that the discretionary function, law enforcement, and Feres exceptions² to the FTCA have been judicially-imputed into the SIAA. Thus, the Government suggests that the FTCA's defamation exception should similarly be imputed into the SIAA to bar Plaintiff's claim. Moreover, the government argues that the legislative history of the SIAA shows that in amending the SIAA, Congress inadvertently omitted the FTCA exceptions when it amended the SIAA to include essentially all admiralty tort actions against the government, even those maritime actions that had been previously adjudicated under the FTCA. Finally, the government contends that the libel and slander exceptions should be imputed to the SIAA for public policy reasons. The court first begins by considering the plain language of the SIAA, and then addresses each of the Government's arguments in turn.

A. Sovereign Immunity and the Plain Language of the SIAA

As sovereign, the United States is immune from suit unless it specifically consents to be sued or expressly waives its sovereign immunity. See Buchanan v. Alexander, 45 U.S. 20, 4 How. 20, 11 L.Ed. 857 (1846). If sovereign immunity applies, a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399, 96 S.Ct. 948, 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976). Numerous courts have noted that the SIAA constitutes a broad waiver of sovereign immunity. See, e.g., McMellon v. United States of America, 387 F.3d 329, 332, 335 (4th Cir.2004) (noting that when Congress enacted the SIAA in 1920, "the Act did not include any exceptions to its waiver of sovereign immunity for the cases that fell within its scope."); U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. U.S., 806 F.2d 1529, 1535 (11th Cir.1986) ("Both the PVA and the Suits in Admiralty Act (SAA) contain broad waivers of sovereign immunity...."); Montego Bay Imports, Ltd. v. U.S., 1990 WL 98044, at *1, *3 (S.D.Fla. Jan. 2, 1990). The SIAA grants the courts admiralty jurisdiction in essentially all admiralty tort claims that could be asserted against the government. McMellon, 387 F.3d at 336-37. The SIAA authorizes in personam admiralty actions against the United States "in cases where if such vessel were privately owned or operated, or if such cargo were privately owned or possessed, or if a private person or property were involved, a proceeding in admiralty could be maintained." 46 U.S.C. app. § 742.

The Supreme Court has stated repeatedly that the plain language of a statute is the best evidence of Congressional intent. See., e.g., Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1, 6, 119 S.Ct. 966, 143 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999). "[W]hen the statute's language is plain, the sole function of the courts — at least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd — is to enforce it according to its terms." Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 530 U.S. 1, 6, 120 S.Ct. 1942, 147 L.Ed.2d 1 (2000). In 1960, Congress amended the SIAA to clarify the Act's jurisdiction over admiralty tort actions, fourteen years after Congress enacted the FTCA. See McMellon, 387 F.3d at 336-37. Importantly, the 1960 amendments did not add any of the FTCA's exceptions to the SIAA's waiver of sovereign immunity. Moreover, the SIAA clearly and unequivocally provides that an in personam admiralty action may be brought against the government if such an action could be maintained against a private person. 46 U.S.C. app. § 742. Thus, the plain language of the SIAA reflects Congressional intent that the FTCA's defamation exception should not be excluded from the waiver of sovereign immunity. See Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438, 450, 122 S.Ct. 941, 151 L.Ed.2d 908 (2002) (explaining that when construing a statute, "the first step is to determine whether the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning with regard to the particular dispute in the case. The inquiry ceases if the statutory language is unambiguous and the statutory scheme is coherent and consistent." (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

In McMellon, a recent en banc opinion of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court agreed with this proposition. The court explicitly stated that the language of the SIAA provided an unambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity for all claims brought pursuant to the statute. See McMellon, 387 F.3d at 340 ("The waiver of sovereign immunity contained within the SIAA, however, is clear and unequivocal...."). In considering whether to impute the discretionary function exception, the majority reasoned that "the plain language of the SIAA seems to reflect a Congressional intent that discretionary acts should not be excluded from the waiver of sovereign immunity." Id. at 340. Further, the court rejected the Government's argument that the legislative history of the statute supported imputing a discretionary function exception. Id. In short, the court reasoned that it could not "conclude that Congress clearly intended for the SIAA's waiver of sovereign immunity to be subject to an exception for discretionary functions, nor [could it] reach that conclusion by resort to traditional tools of statutory construction." Id.³

The Fifth Circuit's reasoning in B & F Trawlers, Inc. v. United States, 841 F.2d 626 (5th Cir.1988), is also particularly instructive. In B & F Trawlers, the Fifth Circuit refused to impute the law enforcement exception contained in the FTCA into the SIAA. In so doing, the court reasoned that

Neither the Supreme Court nor any other circuit court has been asked to incorporate the FTCA law enforcement exception into the SIAA and PVA. Until we are persuaded otherwise, we decline to do so. Congress enacted the SIAA and PVA in 1920 and 1925, respectively. When Congress enacted the FTCA in 1948, it did not incorporate the numerous liability exceptions therein into the SIAA and PVA. Forty more years have elapsed since the FTCA became law, and Congress still has not modified or amended the SIAA ... to incorporate any FTCA exceptions. Confronted with such a lengthy period of legislative silence, we hesitate to rewrite the SIAA ... as requested by the government. If the law enforcement exception is to be engrafted into the SIAA and PVA, then the grafting should be done by legislative surgeons, not judicial...