Christopher Psaila v. Erika Girardi, 2:23-cv-07120

Plaintiff Christopher Psaila brought claims against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) based on actions taken by Secret Service agents during a criminal investigation and prosecution.
The relevant claims included malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), negligence/negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), and negligent training, supervision, and failure to discipline agents.
The court previously dismissed similar claims with leave to amend; Psaila amended his complaint.
The United States moved to dismiss all claims based on lack of probable cause, FTCA exceptions, and sovereign immunity defenses.
The court found that the facts asserted in support of all tort claims stemmed from the same investigatory and prosecutorial conduct.
A grand jury indictment had been returned against Psaila, and he failed to rebut the presumption of probable cause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Malicious prosecution under FTCA	Agents lacked probable cause, ignored exculpatory evidence, and brought prosecution based on false or insufficient evidence.	Probable cause existed; grand jury indictment creates presumptive probable cause; no fabrication shown.	Dismissed for failure to plausibly allege lack of probable cause.
IIED and Negligence/NIED as distinct from malicious prosecution	Claims are based on additional facts and elements, not just initiation/continuation of prosecution.	Claims are derivative of malicious prosecution; California doesn't recognize separate IIED for lawsuits.	Dismissed as derivative of malicious prosecution claims.
Negligent training, supervision, and failure to discipline	Agents violated non-discretionary duties/policies in conduct leading to investigation and prosecution.	Claim barred by FTCA's discretionary function exception; hiring/training/supervision are policy choices.	Dismissed under discretionary function exception.
Leave to amend	Should be granted to correct deficiencies.	Should be denied as amendment would be futile; prior opportunities given.	Denied as futile; claims already amended once; no new facts offered.

Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (sovereign immunity precludes suits against U.S. without express waiver)
United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (waiver of sovereign immunity must be explicit and strictly construed)
Dep’t of Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 525 U.S. 255 (scope of sovereign immunity waivers strictly construed)
Terbush v. United States, 516 F.3d 1125 (FTCA waives immunity only for state-law torts by government employees)
Conrad v. United States, 447 F.3d 760 (grand jury indictment creates presumption of probable cause under California malicious prosecution law)
Vickers v. United States, 228 F.3d 944 (decisions on hiring/training/supervision generally protected by discretionary function exception)
United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (framework for FTCA discretionary function exception)