Davis v. Transportation Security Administration
264 F. Supp. 3d 6
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- On January 21, 2013 (Inauguration Day), Tracy Davis alleges a TSA-owned explosive‑detection canine attacked and bit her minor daughter while the pair entered Metro Center station.
- Plaintiff sued the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) for negligence.
- After limited jurisdictional discovery, WMATA and the TSA each moved to dismiss on sovereign‑immunity grounds (WMATA invoking its compact/police‑function immunity; TSA invoking the FTCA discretionary‑function exception).
- Plaintiff filed a half‑page opposition more than 20 days late without moving for an extension; the two substantive sentences did not address defendants’ immunity arguments.
- The Court disregarded the late opposition, treated defendants’ motions as conceded, and alternatively evaluated and agreed with defendants’ immunity defenses on the merits.
- The Court granted both motions and dismissed the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff's late opposition forfeits response to motions | Davis implicitly opposed and sought to proceed on negligence | WMATA/TSA: opposition untimely and fails to respond to immunity arguments; treat motions as conceded | Court disregarded late brief; treated motions as conceded and granted dismissal |
| Whether TSA is immune under FTCA discretionary‑function exception | Plaintiff argued TSA supplied/trained the canine and should proceed to prove knowledge of danger | TSA: canine training/decisionmaking are discretionary, rooted in policy, thus excepted from FTCA waiver | Court found plaintiff failed to identify any mandatory policy; discretionary‑function exception applies; claim dismissed |
| Whether WMATA retains sovereign immunity for police/security activities | Davis alleged WMATA requested/used police/TSA canine and is liable for negligence | WMATA: police/security operations are governmental functions and outside waiver of immunity; request/consent were discretionary | Court held WMATA’s police/security activities are governmental/discretionary; claim barred and dismissed |
| Whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice given procedural posture | Davis implicitly sought to avoid dismissal by filing opposition | Defendants: failure to timely oppose permits dismissal (treated as conceded); dismissal appropriate | Court granted dismissal (order issued); analysis notes D.C. Circuit limits on dismissing with prejudice for late opposition but here dismissal was appropriate on concession and merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. District of Columbia, 430 F.3d 450 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (courts may decline to consider untimely filings absent a motion showing excusable neglect)
- Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871 (U.S. 1990) (procedural rules and timely filings required; district court discretion over late filings)
- Cohen v. Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia, 819 F.3d 476 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (distinguishes late but prompt attempts to respond from total failure to oppose; late opposition may be treated as equivalent to no opposition)
- Burkhart v. WMATA, 112 F.3d 1207 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (canine training decisions involve policy considerations and often fall within discretionary‑function exception)
- Dant v. District of Columbia, 829 F.2d 69 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (operation of a police force is a governmental function for immunity analysis)
- Martin v. WMATA, 667 F.2d 435 (4th Cir. 1981) (operation of police force is a quintessential governmental function)