Talley v. United States

• Decision Date: 26 March 2014
• Docket Number: Civil No. 11-1180 (RBK/KMW)
• Parties: ANN MARIE TALLEY Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

ANN MARIE TALLEY Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

Civil No. 11-1180 (RBK/KMW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE

Dated: March 26, 2014

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

(Doc. No. 53)

OPINION

KUGLER United States District Judge:

This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Anne Marie Talley ("Plaintiff") to file a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff alleges that she was wrongfully denied the proceeds of her deceased husband's life insurance policy due to the United States' negligent handling of a form he submitted for the purpose of changing his policy beneficiary, and that the United States breached a fiduciary duty owed to Plaintiff and her late husband. The United States argues that Plaintiff's motion to amend is futile because her tort claims are not cognizable under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"). For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motion will be DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The factual background and procedural history of this case was set forth in the Court's Opinion of January 24, 2014 as follows:

Walter E. Talley, III began working as a civilian employee of the United States Department of the Navy on January 21, 1981. United States' Statement ofMaterial Facts Not in Dispute ("SUMF") ¶ 1. In 1992, Mr. Talley executed a Designation of Beneficiary Form for the Federal Employees' Life Insurance ("FEGLI") Program, which designated his son, Walter E. Talley, IV, as the sole beneficiary of his life insurance policy. Id. ¶ 3. On August 26, 2005, Mr. Talley married Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 6. In 2009, he sought to change three beneficiary forms relating to his benefits and pay as a federal employee. Id. ¶ 7. On or about May 4, 2009, he completed the three forms, known as Designation of Beneficiary forms. Id. ¶¶ 8-10. On two occasions in May, 2009, Mr. Talley went to the Financial Management Office for the Norfolk Naval Shipyard Detachment, Naval Foundry and Propeller Center, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and sought assistance with the forms. Id. ¶ 11. On the first occasion, he presented two of the forms that required witness signatures, and two employees of the Financial Management office signed as witnesses. The two forms sought to designate Plaintiff as the beneficiary for unpaid compensation of a deceased civilian employee, and as the beneficiary of a Civil Service Retirement System account. Id. ¶¶ 8, 9, 13, 14. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Talley left those forms with the Financial Management Office for filing, while the United States contends that Mr. Talley took the documents with him. Id. ¶ 15; Pl. Opp'n at 2. Those two forms were required to be filed with Mr. Talley's "employing agency" prior to his death in order to be valid. SUMF, ¶ 17. Each was received in May, 2009, by the Civilian Benefits Center ("CBC") in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and certified as valid. Id. ¶¶ 20, 23. Plaintiff was paid benefits as a result of the filing of these two forms, and neither of these are in dispute.

The form that is at issue in this matter is the Designation of Beneficiary for Mr. Talley's life insurance policy provided through FEGLI. This Designation of Beneficiary form is known as form SF 2823 ("SF 2823"). Id. ¶ 10. On May 13, 2009, the CBC received the SF 2823, but noted that it lacked the required witness signatures, and therefore it returned the form to Mr. Talley. Id. ¶ 26.

Upon receipt of the returned form, Mr. Talley completed a second SF 2823 form, and again went to the Financial Management Office and asked Navy personnel to witness his signature on the second SF 2823 form. Id. ¶¶ 27-28. The United States contends that two employees signed as witnesses, and they then returned the witnessed form to Mr. Talley, who took it with him. Id. ¶¶ 29-30. Plaintiff again alleges that Mr. Talley left the form to be forwarded by the Financial Management Office to CBC. See Pl. Opp'n at 2-3. The SF 2823 specifically stated that the insured "must sign this form. Two people must witness the signature and sign as witnesses. The Insured's agency . . . must receive the designation before the Insured's death." Id. ¶ 41. The United States indicates that the CBC was Mr. Talley's "employing agency," while Plaintiff denies that the CBC was the sole employing agency. Id. ¶ 32; Pl. Response to SUMF ¶ 32.

On January 30, 2010, Mr. Talley died. SUMF ¶ 37. Because the new SF 2823 form was not received by the CBC before his death, the only form in Mr. Talley's official personnel file considered valid by the United States was the one from 1992 that designated his son as his sole beneficiary. Seeid. ¶ 38. The insurance proceeds were disbursed accordingly.

On March 2, 2011, Plaintiff filed her complaint, naming both the United States and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("Metlife") as defendants for their roles in her "being wrongfully denied and deprived of the insurance proceeds to which she was due." Compl. ¶ 20. She sought damages in the amount of $235,000.00, the amount she would have received as the beneficiary of her husband's life insurance policy. On March 28, 2013, this Court granted Metlife's motion for summary judgment, finding that Plaintiff's claim that Metlife had paid the policy benefits too quickly to the beneficiary, Walter Talley IV, lacked merit and did not support a finding of negligence as a matter of law. On the same date, the Court granted the motion of the United States to dismiss the complaint on jurisdictional grounds. The Court found that Plaintiff did not identify an analogous local law under which she could recover, as required by the FTCA. However, the Court dismissed the claim without prejudice and gave Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint within 30 days of the issuance of the Order dismissing the case. See ECF Doc. No. 39.

Talley v. United States, Civ. No. 11-1180, 2014 WL 282680, at *1-2 (D.N.J. Jan. 24, 2014) (ECF Doc. No 51)

After Plaintiff amended her complaint, the United States again moved to dismiss the amended complaint on jurisdictional grounds. Because Plaintiff again did not identify an analogous cause of action under local law in her complaint, the Court dismissed the amended complaint pursuant to an Opinion and Order of January 24, 2014, but granted Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiff's motion to file a Second Amended Complaint is now before the Court.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend pleadings shall be "freely give[n]" when "justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178(1962), the Supreme Court articulated the liberal policy of allowing amendments underlying Rule 15(a) as follows:

If the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits. In the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.—the leave sought should, as the rules require, be "freely given."

Foman, 371 U.S. at 182; see also Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 115 (3d Cir. 2000).

In determining if a proposed amendment should be denied based on futility grounds, courts employ the "same standard of legal sufficiency as applies under [Federal] Rule [of Civil Procedure] 12(b)(6)." Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 175 (3d Cir. 2010) (citations omitted); see also Alvin v. Suzuki, 227 F.3d 107, 121 (3d Cir. 2000) ("An amendment is futile if the amended complaint would not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted."). Under Rule 12(b)(6), a motion to dismiss may be granted if the plaintiff is unable to articulate "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). While "detailed factual allegations" are not necessary, a "plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do[.]" Id. at 555; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009).

III. DISCUSSION

Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the United States "is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued, and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court'sjurisdiction to entertain the suit." CNA v. United States, 535 F.3d 132, 140-41 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941)). The FTCA provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity, making the Federal Government liable to the same extent that "the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred." 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1); see also United States v. Olson, 546 U.S. 43, 46 (2005). Thus, to establish jurisdiction under the FTCA, a litigant must identify a cause of action recognized in the relevant jurisdiction under which an analogous private individual would be liable. See Cecile Indus., Inc. v. United States, 793 F.2d 97, 100 (3d Cir. 1986); Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61, 75 (1955). This "local law" requirement, as some courts have coined it, must be satisfied before the United States can be considered to have waived its sovereign immunity. See Olson, 546 U.S. at 44; see also Cecile, 793 F.2d at 100. If an analogous private party defendant would not be liable under the same circumstances, a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Wake v. United States, 89 F.3d 53, 57 (2d Cir. 1996) ("[s]overeign immunity is jurisdictional in nature."); United States v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 218 n.3 (1949) ("Local law must be pleaded since the Federal Tort...