Dichter-Mad Family Partners, LLP v. United States
709 F.3d 749
9th Cir.2013Background
- Appellants’ claims fall within the discretionary function exception to the FTCA, depriving the court of jurisdiction.
- District court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; the court adopted the district court’s April 20, 2010 opinion.
- The district court dismissed with prejudice; Second Amended Complaint’s new allegations fail to overcome the discretionary function immunity.
- Most alleged mandatory duties are not truly mandatory, and lack the causal link to plaintiffs’ injuries.
- District court did not abuse its discretion in denying additional discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under discretionary function exception | Appellants argue FTCA waiver is not discretionary. | Government contends discretionary function immunity bars suit. | Lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; discretionary function applies. |
| Effect of Second Amended Complaint | Second Amended Complaint argues added duties overcome immunity. | New allegations remain non-mandatory and fail to remove discretion. | Second Amended Complaint insufficient to overcome immunity. |
| Meaning of mandatory duties | Alleged mandatory duties transform guidelines into binding rules. | Policies are not truly mandatory and do not strip discretion. | Most alleged duties not mandatory; do not defeat discretion. |
| Causal link between policies and injuries | Injury causation exists via alleged policy mandates. | No causal relationship established under generous reading. | No jurisdictional causal link established. |
| Discovery denial | More discovery needed to prove claims. | Broad discretion to deny discovery found proper. | No abuse of discretion; discovery denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Terbush v. United States, 516 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir.2008) (mandatory language does not convert guidelines into binding regulations)
- Sabow v. United States, 93 F.3d 1445 (9th Cir.1996) (few mandatory provisions do not defeat discretionary immunity)
- Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. United States, 139 F.3d 1280 (9th Cir.1998) (injury flows from discretionary decision; cannot recast action)
- Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732 (9th Cir.2002) (broad discovery discretion; denial affirmed absent prejudice)
- Gager v. United States, 149 F.3d 918 (9th Cir.1998) (burden to show discovery exists rests on asserting party)