Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Knight v. United States

May 19, 2009

JACQUE L. KNIGHT, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
UNITED STATES, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: A. Richard Caputo United States District Judge

(JUDGE CAPUTO)

MEMORANDUM

Presently before the Court is the Partial Motion to Dismiss of the United States. (Doc. 4.) The United States argues that several claims should be dismissed from Plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on Plaintiffs' failure to exhaust their administrative remedies. For the reasons state below, the Court will grant Defendant's motion and dismiss Counts II and III of the complaint. The Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1346.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Jacque and John Knight bring this action individually and on behalf of their child, the minor-Plaintiff John Knight, II. They allege negligent treatment provided by employees of a Federally Qualified Health Center, including negligent pre-natal care and negligent delivery of the minor-Plaintiff.

Plaintiffs raise three (3) Counts in their complaint. Count I raises a claim by Jacque and John Knight as parents and natural guardians of the minor-Plaintiff for injuries sustained by the latter. Count II raises a claim by Jacque Knight, individually, for her injuries. Count III raises a claim by Jacque and John Knight, individually, for financial injury suffered as a result of the negligent care provided to the minor-Plaintiff.

Plaintiffs filed their complaint on October 30, 2008. (Doc. 1.) Defendant United States filed the instant partial motion to dismiss on January 16, 2009. (Doc. 2.) The United States moves that Count II and at least part of Count III should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). The motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) provides for dismissal of an action where the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of that action. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1).

A defendant may challenge the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in two fashions. See Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. And Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977). Where a defendant attacks the complaint as deficient on its face, the Court must assume that "the allegations contained in the complaint are true." Id. In deciding a Rule 12(b)(1) facial attack, the court may only consider the allegations contained in the complaint and the exhibits attached to the complaint; matters of public record such as court records, letter decisions of government agencies and published reports of administrative bodies; and "undisputably authentic" documents which the plaintiff has identified as a basis of his claims and which the defendant has attached as exhibits to his motion to dismiss. Hunter v. United States, No. 00-cv-0036, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20206, at *7 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 15, 2000). See generally Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus. Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196-97 (3d Cir. 1993).

However, when the motion to dismiss attacks the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact, no presumptive truthfulness attaches to the allegation included in the plaintiff's complaint. Carpet Group Int'l v. Oriental Rug Imps. Ass'n, Inc., 227 F.3d 62, 69 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Mortensen, 549 F.2d at 891). Thus, the Court may weigh all of the available evidence to satisfy itself that subject matter jurisdiction indeed exists. Id. It is important to note also that the existence of disputed material facts will not preclude the Court from evaluating the jurisdictional allegations set forth in the complaint. Gould Elecs., Inc. V. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 2000).

In instant motion presents a factual attack on jurisdiction because Defendant's challenge does not concern an alleged pleading deficiency, but Plaintiffs' failure to comport with the jurisdictional requirements of the FTCA. See United States ex rel. Atkinson v. Pa. Shipbuilding Co., 473 F.3d 506, 514 (3d Cir. 2007).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs' action implicates the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), the exclusive remedy for an individual asserting a personal injury claim for the act or omission of a federal employee acting within the scope of his or her employment.*fn1 The FTCA requires that a Plaintiff exhaust his or her administrative remedies ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.