109 F. Supp. 3d 67
D.D.C.2015Background
- Five former Voice of America Pashto Service broadcasters sued alleging age and national-origin discrimination, retaliation, and nine common-law torts, filing an 18-count, 226-page complaint.
- Defendant Broadcasting Board of Governors moved to dismiss the tort claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the FTCA and to strike the complaint as violative of Rule 8 for being unduly long and repetitive.
- Plaintiffs argued they exhausted administrative remedies via HR and the Office of Civil Rights and moved to expedite the case due to plaintiffs' age and health.
- The court found the complaint failed to allege FTCA exhaustion because it did not allege a sum-certain administrative claim presentation.
- The court also concluded the pleading was excessively long and repetitively detailed, impairing Defendant's ability to respond and conflicting with Rule 8.
- Relief: Counts 10–18 (common-law torts) dismissed without prejudice; entire complaint stricken; plaintiffs given leave to file a streamlined amended complaint by June 29, 2015; motion to expedite denied without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over common-law torts under FTCA | Plaintiffs contend FTCA applies and that HR/Office of Civil Rights contacts satisfied exhaustion | Plaintiffs failed to present a sum-certain administrative claim as required by FTCA § 2675(a) | Dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead or demonstrate FTCA exhaustion |
| Sufficiency/clarity of pleading under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 | Lengthy factual recitation is necessary and relevant to the controversy | Complaint is unduly long, repetitive, and prevents concise defense; violates Rule 8 | Complaint stricken; leave to file a shortened, non-repetitive amended complaint |
| Consideration of alternative Rule 12(b)(6) defenses to tort claims | N/A (focused on jurisdiction/exhaustion) | Defendant also raised merits defenses, but urged dismissal on jurisdictional grounds first | Court declined to address merits after concluding lack of jurisdiction over FTCA claims |
| Motion to expedite under 28 U.S.C. § 1657 | Plaintiffs cite age and health as good cause for expedited consideration | No compelling precedent or exceptional circumstances shown to override docket control | Denied without prejudice; court will consider future renewal if circumstances change |
Key Cases Cited
- Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (court may strike an overlong, confusing complaint under Rule 8 and 12(f))
- GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (FTCA presentment requires written description of injury and a sum-certain damages claim)
- Herbert v. Nat’l Acad. of Sciences, 974 F.2d 192 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (scope of consideration on Rule 12(b)(1) motions; courts may rely on complaint alone or consider supplemental undisputed facts)
- Am. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. FDIC, 642 F.3d 1137 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (on Rule 12(b)(1) the court assumes truth of material factual allegations in the complaint)
- In re Papandreou, 139 F.3d 247 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (where jurisdiction is lacking, court should not reach merits)
- Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) (district court has broad discretion to manage its docket)