Geeta Chhetri v. United States, 823 F.3d 577

Background

On April–May 2011 FMCSA conducted a compliance review of Sky Express and proposed an "unsatisfactory" safety rating based on multiple violations; Sky Express would have to cease passenger operations when the rating became final after 45 days.
Sky Express submitted a written request (through a consultant) seeking an upgrade to "conditional" and described corrective steps; FMCSA denied the upgrade but granted a ten-day extension to complete a follow-up compliance review, delaying the unsatisfactory rating until June 7, 2011.
During that ten-day extension (May 31, 2011) the Sky Express driver fell asleep and the bus crashed, injuring Geeta and Pratik Chhetri.
The Chhetris sued the United States under the FTCA alleging negligent and reckless grant of the ten-day extension; the district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the FTCA discretionary-function exception, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a).
On appeal the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding (1) challenges to the validity of the FMCSA regulation allowing ten-day extensions are foreclosed in district court by the Hobbs Act jurisdictional scheme, and (2) even under the regulation the decision to grant an extension involved discretion and was grounded in policy, so the discretionary-function exception barred the FTCA claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court could adjudicate challenges that would call into question the validity of 49 C.F.R. § 385.17(f)	Chhetri: § 31144 prohibits extensions for passenger carriers, so the regulation was invalid and district court could decide	U.S.: Hobbs Act vests exclusive jurisdiction over validity of DOT rules in courts of appeals, so district court lacked jurisdiction	Court: Hobbs Act bars district-court determination of the regulation’s validity; proceed assuming the 2011 regulation governed
Whether the FMCSA’s grant of the ten-day extension was non-discretionary (thus outside FTCA exception) because prerequisites in § 385.17 were not met	Chhetri: FMCSA lacked discretion because Sky Express did not submit required written evidence showing current compliance and FMCSA had not shown inability to decide within 45 days	U.S.: Regulation expressly conferred discretion; agency’s assessment of carrier evidence and timing involves judgment	Court: § 385.17(f) conferred discretion; preliminary determinations (weight of evidence, agency resources) are discretionary, so FTCA discretionary-function exception applies
Whether the discretionary-function exception requires inquiry into whether action was based on policy considerations	Chhetri: Agency abused discretion and applied looser standard from other subsections	U.S.: Even if abused, discretion is protected when grounded in policy considerations	Court: Decision to grant extension implicated safety and policy; Gaubert/Berkovitz framework satisfied, so exception bars suit regardless of abuse
Whether the case should be resolved under state tort analog or due-care exception to FTCA	Chhetri: Alternatively argued FTCA due-care exception and that a private analog would be liable	U.S.: Argues no private analog/success under state law; discretionary-function dispositive	Court: Did not reach state-law private-analog or due-care arguments because discretionary-function exception disposes of jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 (establishes two-part test for FTCA discretionary-function exception)
United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (explains that agency actions grounded in policy are protected even if abused)
Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200 (framework on when statutory review schemes preclude district-court actions)
Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15 (discusses refusal to test administrative judgments via damage suits)
Mais v. Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, Inc., 768 F.3d 1110 (11th Cir.) (Hobbs Act practical-effect test limits district-court review of agency rules)
Pomomo v. United States, 814 F.3d 681 (4th Cir.) (upheld that FMCSA’s ten-day-extension decision was discretionary and protected)
Zelaya v. United States, 781 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir.) (standard of review for FTCA jurisdictional dismissals)