Dettling v. United States
983 F. Supp. 2d 1184
D. Haw.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Joe Dettling and Robert Cabos sued NOAA claiming loss of traditional fishing rights after establishment of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument (PMNM) by Proclamation 8031 (2006) and alleged wrongful implementation of related compensation under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008.
- Dettling and Cabos did not hold federal bottomfish or lobster permits for PMNM waters on June 15, 2006; Cabos held PRIA lobster permits for different waters in later years. Plaintiffs relied largely on state permits pre-2006.
- Plaintiffs submitted various administrative communications: a 2006 letter by Dettling (seeking MSA disaster relief) and identical Form 95 FTCA claims dated January 7, 2011 claiming economic harm from a 2009 Executive Order (Proclamation 8336) affecting PRIA waters.
- NOAA promulgated regulations implementing Proclamation 8031 and later issued compensation rules under the 2008 Appropriations Act for holders of federal lobster/bottomfish permits in PMNM waters; compensation was disbursed in 2010 to those NOAA identified as eligible.
- Lower court proceedings: prior complaint dismissed with leave to amend; this Order grants NOAA’s amended motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint in full (some claims with leave to amend, one claim with prejudice).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FTCA negligence claims: exhaustion of administrative remedies | Plaintiffs contend either Dettling’s 2006 letter or their Jan. 7, 2011 Form 95s exhausted FTCA remedies | NOAA argues the 2006 letter sought MSA disaster relief (different claim) and Form 95s referenced Proclamation 8336 (PRIA), not Proclamation 8031 (PMNM) | Dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust (Form 95s did not give adequate notice of PMNM-based claims; 2006 letter was different claim and untimely under MSA) |
| FTCA negligence claims: waiver of sovereign immunity / state-law analogue | Plaintiffs assert NOAA negligently implemented Proclamation 8031 and Appropriations Act and cite Hawaii law analogies | NOAA argues FTCA does not cover alleged breaches of federal duties; plaintiffs identify no Hawaii tort analogue creating liability for enforcement of federal law | Dismissed without prejudice for lack of FTCA jurisdiction (no cognizable state-law analogue; claims rest on alleged federal-law duties) |
| FTCA intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) | Plaintiffs assert IIED based on NOAA threats and misstatements | NOAA notes Form 95s sought only economic damages and did not mention emotional distress | Dismissed with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (no administrative notice of emotional harm) |
| APA and compensation claims (Appropriations Act / Tucker Act) | Plaintiffs seek relief as APA claims to compel compensation; alternatively waive damages over $10,000 to remain in district court | NOAA contends APA does not waive for money damages; compensation claims fall under Tucker Act and require a money-mandating source and proof of eligibility | APA claims dismissed without prejudice (Plaintiffs seek monetary compensation); compensation claims under Tucker Act dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to show they were eligible permit-holders under the Appropriations Act |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358 (9th Cir.) (distinguishing facial and factual attacks on jurisdiction)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards; legal conclusions not entitled to assumption of truth)
- United States v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (FTCA sovereign-immunity limits; federal-law duties not waived)
- Goodman v. United States, 298 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir.) (minimal notice requirement for FTCA exhaustion)
- Warren v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior Bureau of Land Mgmt., 724 F.2d 776 (9th Cir.) (administrative claim must describe injury and demand a sum certain)
- Jachetta v. United States, 653 F.3d 898 (9th Cir.) (allegations of federal-law violations are not actionable under FTCA)
- Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (distinguishing money damages from equitable relief under the APA)