Anthony Booth v. United States
914 F.3d 1199
9th Cir.2019Background
- Ten-year-old Anthony K. Booth lost his father in a highway crash on February 19, 2005; Booth was a minor throughout most of the relevant proceedings.
- Booth’s mother, Marlene June, filed an administrative FTCA claim with FHWA and sued the United States on behalf of Booth and other beneficiaries; she presented the administrative claim December 16, 2010 and sued in 2011.
- The FTCA requires presenting tort claims to the appropriate federal agency within two years of accrual (28 U.S.C. § 2401(b)) and filing suit within six months after final denial.
- The Government moved to dismiss as time-barred; the district court held the claim accrued at the accident and that FTCA limitations could not be tolled for minority or equitable reasons (pre-Wong rule).
- After the Ninth Circuit en banc and the Supreme Court decided Wong (holding FTCA limitations are subject to equitable tolling), the case was remanded; Booth (now an adult) argued minority tolling and equitable tolling on appeal.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the United States: minority status does not toll § 2401(b), and minority alone does not justify equitable tolling absent extraordinary circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether minority status tolls the FTCA two-year presentment period (§ 2401(b)) | Minority tolling should suspend the FTCA limitations until Booth reached majority | FTCA limitations are not tolled for minority; prior Ninth Circuit precedent forbids it | No minority tolling for § 2401(b); prior circuit precedent controls |
| Whether state minority-tolling rules apply to FTCA limits | Arizona minority tolling should apply to toll the federal limitations | State tolling rules do not apply to FTCA federal limitations | State tolling rules are inapplicable; federal law governs the FTCA limitations |
| Whether equitable tolling applies because Booth was a minor | Minority status alone suffices for equitable tolling | Minority alone is not an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling | Minority alone does not justify equitable tolling; equitable tolling requires diligence + extraordinary circumstances |
| Whether tolling language in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) (for non-tort claims) should apply to § 2401(b) tort claims | § 2401(a)’s disability tolling should be read into § 2401(b) | Congress separated the provisions and did not intend (a) to qualify (b); applying (a) to (b) creates anomalies | § 2401(a) tolling does not apply to § 2401(b) tort claims; Glenn and statutory history control |
Key Cases Cited
- Wong v. Beebe, 732 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (Ninth Circuit held FTCA limitations subject to equitable tolling)
- United States v. Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (2015) (Supreme Court affirmed that FTCA time limits are nonjurisdictional and subject to equitable tolling)
- Vance v. Vance, 108 U.S. 514 (1883) (federal courts require express statutory language to extend tolling for infants)
- Poindexter v. United States, 647 F.2d 34 (9th Cir. 1981) (federal law, not state tolling rules, defines FTCA time limitations)
- United States v. Glenn, 231 F.2d 884 (9th Cir. 1956) (historical analysis distinguishing § 2401(a) tolling from § 2401(b) tort limits)
- Papa v. United States, 281 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2002) (Ninth Circuit precedent rejecting minority tolling under the FTCA)