Johnson v. D.C. Metro Transit Authority
239 F. Supp. 3d 293
D.D.C.2017Background
- Plaintiff Wilbur Johnson sued WMATA and the Smithsonian Institution in D.C. Superior Court for negligence arising from a May 10, 2013 vehicle collision; he sought $325,000.
- Superior Court dismissed the claim against WMATA as time-barred.
- The Smithsonian removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 (federal officer/agency removal).
- The Smithsonian moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court found two independent jurisdictional defects: (1) derivative jurisdiction prevents removal from a state court that lacked jurisdiction over the federal agency; and (2) the FTCA presentment requirement was not exhausted (no proven administrative claim to the Smithsonian).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court may exercise jurisdiction after removal under § 1442 when the state court lacked jurisdiction over a federal agency | Johnson did not meaningfully contest removal jurisdiction in opposition | Smithsonian argued derivative jurisdiction applies to § 1442 removals, so federal court inherits the Superior Court’s lack of jurisdiction over FTCA claims against a federal agency | Court held derivative jurisdiction applies to § 1442 removal here; because Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over the Smithsonian, federal court likewise lacks jurisdiction |
| Whether the FTCA presentment requirement was satisfied | Johnson submitted a claim form in his filings but did not prove or argue that the Smithsonian received or adjudicated an administrative claim | Smithsonian produced a declaration showing no record of an FTCA claim; argued presentment is jurisdictional and Johnson failed to exhaust administrative remedies | Court held plaintiff failed to exhaust FTCA administrative remedies; presentment is jurisdictional, so federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether the court could reach merits or apply FTCA statute-of-limitations defenses | Johnson sought damages but did not address exhaustion or jurisdictional defects | Smithsonian argued even if merits considered, statute of limitations defenses might apply but are secondary to jurisdictional defects | Court declined to reach merits; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was required and statute-of-limitations issues were not decided |
| Whether dismissal should be for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or on the merits | Johnson offered no persuasive response to jurisdictional arguments | Smithsonian sought dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction | Court dismissed the case for want of subject-matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 258 U.S. 377 (removal jurisdiction is derivative of state court jurisdiction)
- Lopez v. Sentrillon Corp., 749 F.3d 347 (circuits recognize derivative-jurisdiction doctrine still applies to § 1442 removals)
- Simpkins v. District of Columbia Gov’t, 108 F.3d 366 (FTCA presentment requirement is jurisdictional)
- United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (FTCA time bars are nonjurisdictional and may be equitably tolled)