527 F.Supp.3d 1
D.D.C.2021Background
- In 2014 the U.S. and France executed an Agreement creating a $60 million Fund administered by the U.S. Department of State to compensate certain Holocaust deportation survivors, surviving spouses, or their assigns, with eligibility and documentation requirements set by the Agreement.
- Albert Gutrejman filed a claim to the Fund as the sole heir of an eligible stepfather; he submitted multiple affidavits but lacked documentary proof of his stepfather’s nationality and the Department denied the claim for insufficient proof.
- Esther Gutrejman, as trustee of Albert’s estate, sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging the Department negligently rejected the claim and seeking damages equal to the Fund payment.
- The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing the FTCA waiver does not apply because there is no analogous private tort under D.C. law and the duty alleged arises from an international agreement.
- The Court held the FTCA claim falls outside the FTCA waiver because Plaintiff failed to identify a D.C. tort analogue (and economic-loss and contract/third-party-beneficiary principles bar recovery), dismissed without prejudice, and granted leave to amend to assert APA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FTCA waives immunity for negligent administration of the Fund | Gutrejman: Department was negligent in rejecting the claim and thus liable under the FTCA | U.S.: No FTCA waiver applies because the duty arises from an international agreement, not local tort law | Dismissed — no subject-matter jurisdiction (no private-law analogue) |
| Whether D.C. negligence law supplies an analogous private tort (claims-administrator duty) | Gutrejman: duty analogous to a private claims administrator’s duty to claimants | U.S.: D.C. law recognizes no such special-duty tort and economic-loss/contract doctrines bar it | Dismissed — plaintiff failed to identify an analogous D.C. tort |
| Whether a special relationship exists (economic-loss doctrine exception) | Gutrejman: special relationship between claims administrator and claimant creates an independent duty | U.S.: No precedent recognizing special relationship here; plaintiff alleges only conclusory facts | Dismissed — no allegations to establish a special relationship under D.C. law |
| Whether the discretionary-function exception bars suit (alternative defense) | N/A (plaintiff did not press) | U.S.: Even if private analogue existed, decisionmaking may be discretionary and excepted | Court did not reach this issue because FTCA analogue requirement failed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts have limited subject-matter jurisdiction)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (United States immune from suit absent waiver)
- Hornbeck Offshore Transp., LLC v. United States, 569 F.3d 506 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (FTCA does not apply where duty is created solely by federal law)
- Art Metal-U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 753 F.2d 1151 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (violation of federal duties alone does not create FTCA liability without a state-law analogue)
- Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61 (1955) (FTCA liability where negligent acts would be actionable under local law)
- Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981) (historical practice of executive settlement of claims with foreign governments)
- Choharis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 961 A.2d 1080 (D.C. 2008) (tort duties cannot be predicated on contract terms)
- Aguilar v. RP MPR Wash. Harbour LLC, 98 A.3d 979 (D.C. 2014) (economic-loss doctrine bars recovery of purely economic losses absent a special relationship)