Szucs v. United States Postal Serv.
| Decision Date | 02 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1:21-cv-11839-NLH-KMW |
| Parties | JOSEPH SZUCS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
MARC A. WEINBERG SAFFERN & WEINBERG On behalf of Plaintiff Joseph Szucs.
MARGARET ANN MAHONEY OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY On behalf of Defendant United States of America.
This matter concerns personal injury claims brought by Plaintiff Joseph Szucs against the United States Postal Service, the United States of America, Atlantic County, Atlantic City, and separate groups of currently unnamed individuals and companies. Presently before the Court is the motion of Defendant the United States of America to dismiss Plaintiff's claims. For the reasons expressed below Defendant's motion will be granted, and Plaintiffs' claims asserted against it and the United States Postal Service will be dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff alleges that on April 25, 2019, he “was walking on the sidewalk in front of the premises located at 1801 Atlantic Avenue in Atlantic City, New Jersey when he tripped on a section of the sidewalk that was raised, uneven, broken or otherwise in a dangerous and defective condition causing him to fall.” (Compl. at ¶ 7). Due to this fall Plaintiffs sustained “injuries to his face, shoulders stomach and ribs together with other injuries to his bones, muscles, tendons, ligaments, nerves and nervous system, ” which he claims may continue to cause him mental pain, non-economic loss, and keep him from performing normal daily activities and hobbies. Id. at ¶¶ 8-11. Plaintiff alleges that the property was owned by “the United States Postal Service, the United States of America, Atlantic County and/or the City of Atlantic City.” Id. at ¶ 8.
On May 13, 2019, Plaintiff's counsel sent a letter to the USPS outlining his claim against it. . The USPS responded to that letter with a letter of its own on June 26, 2019, which stated that the initial letter did not meet the standards for pursuing a tort claim against the Government and enclosed a blank Standard Form 95 for Plaintiff to use in submitting a revised claim. (ECF No. 3-4, Ex. B). It does not appear that Plaintiff ever responded to that letter or submitted a revised claim.
Finally, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the USPS, the United States of America, Atlantic County, Atlantic City, and unknown individuals and companies on April 21, 2021, in New Jersey Superior Court. (ECF No. 1-1). That action was removed to this Court by the United States on May 27, 2021. (ECF No. 1). Then, a few weeks later on June 17, 2021, the United States moved to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against both it and the USPS. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, and the time for filing an opposition to the motion has since passed.
Plaintiff filed this action against several defendants, including the United States Postal Service, which is a federal agency, and the United State of America. The United States removed this action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). This Court exercises subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to that statute.
A challenge to this Court's subject matter jurisdiction is determined pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). Gould Elecs., Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 178 (3d Cir. 2000). Rule 12(b)(1) motions are either facial or factual challenges. CNA v. United States, 535 F.3d 132, 140 (3d Cir. 2008). A facial attack concerns the sufficiency of the pleadings, whereas a factual attack is a dispute over the existence of certain jurisdictional facts alleged by the plaintiff. Id. (citing United States ex rel. Atkinson v. Pa. Shipbuilding Co., 473 F.3d 506, 514 (3d Cir. 2007)).
In deciding a motion that attacks the complaint on its face, the court must accept the allegations in the complaint as true. Mortensen v. First Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977); Gould Elecs., 220 F.3d at 176 (). But if the motion attacks the facts supporting jurisdiction, “no presumptive truthfulness attaches to plaintiff's allegations, and the existence of disputed material facts will not preclude the trial court from evaluating for itself the merits of jurisdictional claims.” Mortensen, 549 F.2d at 891. “[I]n a factual attack under Rule 12 (b)(1), the court may consider and weigh evidence outside the pleadings to determine if it has jurisdiction.” Gould Elecs., 220 F.3d at 178. The plaintiff will have the burden of proof that jurisdiction does in fact exist. Mortensen, 549 F.2d at 891.
Here, the United States has asserted a direct factual attack, arguing that Plaintiff failed to meet the jurisdictional requirements for bringing tort claims against the United States prior to filing this lawsuit. Accordingly, the Court may consider evidence presented by the United States that is outside the pleadings to determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's claims against the federal government.
Plaintiff's Complaint alleges five negligence claims: two against Atlantic County and Atlantic City, two against the USPS and the United States, one against a group of unknown individuals, and one against a group of unknown companies. The United States has moved to dismiss the two claims pled against it and the USPS, Counts III and IV, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). While Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to this motion, “the Court must address unopposed motions to dismiss a complaint on the merits.” Estate of Casella v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., No. 09-2306, 2009 WL 2488054, at *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 11, 2009) (citing Stackhouse v. Mazurkiewicz, 951 F.2d 29, 30 (3d Cir. 1991)).
The Government first argues that the claim against the USPS must be dismissed as it is not a proper defendant in this action. As a sovereign, the United States is immune from suit unless it consents to be sued. United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538, 100 S.Ct. 1349, 63 L.Ed.2d 607 (1980) (quoting United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586, 61 S.Ct. 767, 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941)). Its consent to be sued must be “unequivocally expressed, ” and the terms of such consent define the court's subject matter jurisdiction. Id. (quotations omitted). The Federal Torts Claim Act (“FTCA”) “operates as a limited waiver of the United States's sovereign immunity.” White-Squire v. U.S. Postal Service, 592 F.3d 453, 456 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Roma v. United States, 344 F.3d 352, 362 (3d Cir. 2003)). “Because the Federal Tort Claims Act constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity, the Act's established procedures have been strictly construed.” Livera v. First Nat'l State Bank of N.J., 879 F.2d 1186, 1194 (3d Cir.1989).
“It is well established that both the protections of sovereign immunity and the waiver by the FTCA apply to the United States Postal Service.” Arias v. Harrison Post Office, 2017 WL 2952088, at *2 (D.N.J. June 9, 2017) (citing Dolan v. U.S. Postal Serv., 546 U.S. 481, 483-85 (2006)). Sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional issue, and the specific terms of a waiver of immunity, like the FTCA, thus define the scope of the subject matter jurisdiction that courts may exercise. Id. (citing Dolan, 546 U.S. at 484). For this reason, the Government is correct that the United States is the only proper federal defendant to the present action and that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear a negligence claim against the United States Postal Service. See Martinez v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. 15-8545 (FLW), 2016 WL 6892074, at *3 (D.N.J. Nov. 22, 2016); Shahbazian v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. 13-2637 (KM), 2013 WL 4788160, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 6, 2013); Kieffer v. Vilk, 8 F.Supp.2d 387, 391-95 (D.N.J. 1998). Therefore, the Court finds it appropriate to dismiss the Postal Service as a defendant here, leaving the United States as the only federal defendant with a claim asserted against. Martinez, 2016 WL 6892074, at *3 (citing Dilg v. United States Postal Service, 635 F.Supp. 406, 407 (D.N.J. 1985)).
The Court turns next to the Government's argument for dismissal of the claims against it. As explained above, a tort claim asserted against the United States must be brought pursuant to the requirement of the FTCA. To bring a claim against the United States under the FTCA, a plaintiff must first exhaust any available administrative remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); Sebrell v. U.S. Postal Serv., 331 F. App'x. 105, 106 (3d Cir. 2009) (per curiam); Roma v. United States, 344 F.3d 352, 362 (3d Cir. 2003). “No claim can be brought under the FTCA unless the plaintiff first presents the claim to the appropriate federal agency and the agency renders a final decision on the claim.” Shelton v. Bledsoe, 775 F.3d 554, 569 (3d Cir. 2015). If a plaintiff has not exhausted potential administrative remedies, a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claim. White-Squire, 592 F.3d at 45758.
Most importantly for this case, to properly present such a claim a plaintiff must provide the agency with written notification of the incident involved “accompanied by a claim for money damages in a sum certain, ” known as the “sum requirement.” 39 C.F.R. § 912.5(a); Bialowas v. United States, 443 F.2d 1047, 1049 (3d Cir.1971). The purpose of the “sum requirement” is to “enable a determination by the head of the federal agency as to whether the claim falls within the jurisdictional limits of his exclusive authority to process, settle or to properly...
To continue reading
Request your trial