The opinion of the court was delivered by: William J. Martini, U.S.D.J.:
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant United States of America's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Defendant's motion is unopposed. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is GRANTED.
In his pleading, Plaintiff Galvaster Leonard asserts that he was injured in a car accident on March 28, 2010, and that said accident was caused by Jeffrey S. Delgado's careless and negligent operation of Delgado's own vehicle (Plaintiff's "Tort Claims"). On March 16, 2010, Plaintiff brought this action against Delgado in New Jersey state court.
Thereafter, on April 24, 2012, Defendant certified that Delgado is an employee of Immigration and Customs Service ("ICE"), and was acting within the scope of his employment as an employee of the United States at the time of the accident. (Gov't Br. 2, ECF No. 2-4; James B. Clark Cert. of Scope of Employment, ECF No. 1-2.) Accordingly, it is Defendant's contention that the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671--80, governs Plaintiff's Tort Claims.*fn1
On April 26, 2012, the United States of America substituted itself as
the party defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2)*fn2
and removed this matter to district court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1346(b).*fn3 Plaintiff did not object to this
removal or substitution. Thereafter, Defendant filed the present
motion to dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which Plaintiff
has also failed to oppose.
A motion made under Rule 12(b)(1) argues that dismissal is proper because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction -- i.e., that the court lacks the authority to consider the attacked claim. Tobin v. United States, 170 F. Supp. 2d 472, 475-76 (D.N.J. 2001). A Rule 12(b)(1) motion may challenge subject matter jurisdiction based upon the face of the complaint or upon its underlying facts. Common Cause of Pa. v. Pennsylvania, 558 F.3d 249, 257 (3d Cir. 2009). Where, as here, the motion concerns the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact, then the court may consider affidavits and other relevant evidence outside of the pleadings. Berardi v. Swanson Mem'l Lodge No. 48 of Fraternal Order of Police, 920 F.2d 198, 200 (3d Cir. 1990).
In support of its present Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, Defendant asserts that under the FTCA, Plaintiff must first exhaust certain administrative remedies prior to bringing suit for his Tort Claims, and that because Plaintiff has failed to do so, the Court is without subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter.
b.The Federal Tort Claims Act
Generally, claims against the United States are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465, 472 (2003); United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980), reh'g den'd, 446 U.S. 992. Although the United States can waive sovereign immunity, in the absence of such a waiver, a court must dismiss a claim against the United States for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id.; White--Squire v. U.S. Postal Service, 592 F.3d 453, 456 (3d Cir. 2010). The FTCA is one such waiver of federal sovereign immunity. White--Squire at456. The following observations about the FTCA bear on the present motion:
First, the FTCA provides the exclusive remedy for tort claims against the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(a);
Second, federal district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over lawsuits arising under the FTCA. Santos v. United States, 559 F.3d 189, 193 (3d Cir. ...