Triplett v. United States
| Decision Date | 08 October 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. Civil LV 79-289 RDF.,Civil LV 79-289 RDF. |
| Citation | 501 F. Supp. 118 |
| Parties | Ann TRIPLETT, Executrix of the Estate of Oral Merman Triplett, Plaintiff, v. The UNITED STATES of America, and Does I through XX, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada |
Beckley, Singleton, DeLanoy & Jemison, Las Vegas, Nev., for plaintiff.
U. S. Atty. B. Mahlon Brown by Brian L. Sullivan, Asst. U. S. Atty., D. Nev., Las Vegas, Nev., and Charles E. Mandolia, Trial Atty., Torts Branch, Civ. Div., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The defendant United States of America moves to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to meet the statutory prerequisites to suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680, in that the administrative claim filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by their attorney did not include "evidence of his authority to present a claim on behalf of the claimant", as required by 28 CFR § 14.3(e).
By letter dated January 17, 1979, J. Mitchell Cobeaga, an attorney at law, purported to file an administrative claim with the United States Department of Energy for money damages for the death of one Oral Merman Triplett. The letter was written on letterhead of a Las Vegas law firm and recited that the firm represented the five claimants, being the wife and four children of the deceased, and noted that the claim was presented "on behalf of our clients." The Department of Energy took no action upon the letter. This action was filed on December 28, 1979.
The defendant now moves, on the authority of the Ninth Circuit opinion in House v. Mine Safety Appliances Co., 573 F.2d 609, 617-18 (9th Cir. 1978), to dismiss on the ground that the claim filed by the attorney did not include evidence of the attorney's authority to act on behalf of the claimants. The plaintiff points out that in House the Ninth Circuit remanded to the district court for a determination of the issue as to the attorney's authority to act for the claimant. The plaintiff therefore has filed the affidavits of each of the claimants indicating Mr. Cobeaga's authority to act on their behalf. But, as the defendant correctly points out in its reply, the Ninth Circuit expressly limited this less than strict application of the requirements of the regulations to the case before it on the grounds that (1) the issue had not previously been addressed by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kinlichee v. United States
...cited in this regard occurred before Warren was decided. ( Id.). Second, in one of the cases Defendant cited, Triplett v. United States, 501 F.Supp. 118 (D.Nev.1980), the court relied upon House, which Warren expressly overruled. ( Id.); Warren, 724 F.2d at 780. This wrongful death case lie......
-
Del Valle v. VET. ADMIN., KINGSBRIDGE, 82 Civ. 7973 (RLC).
...requirements of 28 C.F.R. § 14.3, their complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Triplett v. United States, 501 F.Supp. 118 (D.Nev.1980); Pringle v. United States, 419 F.Supp. 289, 291 Plaintiffs' claim forms are also defective on the ground that they failed to a......
-
Campbell v. United States
...by contrast, involves section 14.3(e), which contains no such restriction on who may present a claim for injury. Triplett v. United States, 501 F.Supp. 118 (D.Nev.1980), is likewise distinguishable in that it turned on the failure of an attorney to give evidence of his authority to act for ......
-
Johnson v. United States, CIVIL NO. : WDQ-14-0582
...F.3d at 517 ("[I]f the claimant is represented, the representative's authorization must be demonstrated . . . ."); Triplett v. United States, 501 F. Supp. 118, (D. Nev. 1980) (court lacked jurisdiction when attorney for claimant sent a letter to the government making an FTCA claim, but did ......