Arnold v. Sandoval, 1:21-cv-00399-WJ-JFR

In May 2019 Ashley Arnold was injured in a collision with a USPS employee driving in the scope of employment; she later (Oct. 2019) submitted an SF-95 administrative claim and demand letter for roughly $15,000 in damages.
On July 9, 2020 USPS mailed Arnold a check for $15,241.36 accompanied by a letter stating the payment was "in full and final settlement" and that acceptance would operate as a complete release under 28 U.S.C. § 2672 and 39 C.F.R. § 912.14.
Arnold contacted USPS asking why the check was sent; USPS told her to return the check if she wished to amend the claim. Arnold did not return the check and retained it for over two years.
In August 2020 Arnold’s counsel sent an identical demand letter and claims (later) that they submitted an amended SF-95 seeking $100,000; USPS contends no SF-95 was received and in February 2021 said it would take no action on the duplicative letter.
Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing Arnold accepted the administrative settlement (so there was no final denial required by the FTCA); the Court granted the motion and dismissed counts for negligence, negligence per se, and respondeat superior.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether retaining USPS’s settlement check constituted acceptance of the administrative settlement and thus barred federal suit	Arnold says she did not cash the check and therefore did not accept USPS’s settlement	USPS says mailing the check with release language and Arnold’s retention of it (and failure to return it) constituted acceptance under contract/accord-and-satisfaction principles	Court: Retention of the check (with knowledge she could return it) constituted acceptance; administrative claim was granted and suit is barred
Whether Arnold filed a valid amended SF-95 and received an unfavorable administrative determination that would allow suit under 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a)	Arnold contends she submitted an amended SF-95 for $100,000 and that USPS later refused to act on it (a denial)	USPS says no SF-95 was received; February 2021 letter shows USPS treated the submission as duplicative and took no action	Court: Arnold failed to prove she filed a valid amended SF-95 or received an unfavorable determination; lacks jurisdiction

Harrell v. United States, 443 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir. 2006) (FTCA waives sovereign immunity only as provided)
FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (FTCA waiver context)
McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1993) (administrative exhaustion is jurisdictional under FTCA)
United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30 (1992) (waiver of sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 F.3d 544 (2007) (pleading must be plausible to survive dismissal)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
Hoeppner Constr. Co. v. United States for Use of Trautman & Shreve, Inc., 273 F.2d 835 (10th Cir. 1960) (retention of check tendered in full satisfaction can effect accord and satisfaction)
Wiseman v. United States, 976 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (unfavorable administrative determination required before suing under FTCA)
Odin v. United States, 656 F.2d 798 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (a granted administrative claim cannot support FTCA suit)
United States ex rel. Hafter D.O. v. Spectrum Emergency Care, Inc., 190 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 1999) (plaintiff bears burden to establish subject-matter jurisdiction by a preponderance)