Kelly Copen v. United States, 3f4th875

On May 19, 2017 a USPS driver struck a vehicle driven by Paul Copen with his daughter Kelly riding as a passenger; both alleged personal injuries and vehicle damage.
On May 22, 2017 Kelly filed an SF‑95 listing herself as claimant, noting both she and Paul were injured and that injury damages were "unknown;" she provided and later supplemented property‑damage estimates and was paid for vehicle damages.
Counsel for Kelly sent a representation letter; USPS replied requesting a "sum certain" for personal‑injury damages and stated the SF‑95 must show a dollar amount. The Copens did not provide a dollar figure for personal injuries.
The Copens sued in state court in May 2019 (demanding $25,000), the case was removed and the United States substituted as defendant under 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d).
The district court dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction, reasoning Kelly failed to present a sum certain for personal injuries under 28 U.S.C. § 2675 and Paul failed to present his own claim form.
The Sixth Circuit held the § 2675 sum‑certain requirement is a mandatory claims‑processing rule (not jurisdictional), found both Copens failed to present a sum certain for personal injuries, and REMANDED for further proceedings (so the dismissal must be reconsidered on the non‑jurisdictional posture).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the FTCA § 2675 "sum certain" requirement is jurisdictional	Copens: § 2675 is not jurisdictional; it's a claims‑processing rule subject to usual forfeiture/waiver doctrines	U.S.: § 2675 (and its sum‑certain requirement) is jurisdictional because it conditions the waiver of sovereign immunity in § 1346(b)	Court: § 2675 sum‑certain is a mandatory claims‑processing rule, not jurisdictional; remand for merits/12(b)(6) consideration
Whether Kelly’s SF‑95 satisfied § 2675 for personal‑injury damages	Kelly: SF‑95 (with notes and later property figures) put USPS on notice of injury; sum certain not required on initial form if supplied later	U.S.: No sum certain for personal injuries was ever provided despite USPS’s request; property figures do not satisfy PI sum certain	Court: Kelly failed to provide a sum certain for personal injury; property‑damage sum did not cure the PI deficiency
Whether Paul’s claim was administratively presented without his own SF‑95	Copens: SF‑95 naming Paul and describing his treatment gave sufficient notice so separate form not required	U.S.: Paul did not file his own administrative claim and thus failed presentment	Court: Notice was adequate to identify Paul, but his PI claim also lacked a sum certain; thus Paul also did not comply with § 2675

Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (bright‑line rule for identifying jurisdictional limits vs. claims‑processing rules)
Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (2011) (distinguishing claims‑processing rules from jurisdictional requirements)
McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1993) (FTCA exhaustion is mandatory and intended to give agency opportunity to investigate/settle)
White‑Squire v. United States Postal Serv., 592 F.3d 453 (3d Cir. 2010) (Third Circuit: § 2675 jurisdictional)
Mader v. United States, 654 F.3d 794 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (Eighth Circuit: § 2675 jurisdictional)
Blakely v. United States, 276 F.3d 853 (6th Cir. 2002) (explaining written notification plus sum certain satisfies exhaustion)
Glarner v. United States Dep't of Veterans Admin., 30 F.3d 697 (6th Cir. 1994) (SF‑95 not required; other notice may suffice)
Allen v. United States, 517 F.2d 1328 (6th Cir. 1975) (sum certain for property does not satisfy separate PI claim requirement)
Fort Bend County v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 1843 (2019) (statutory incorporation can make some requirements jurisdictional)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (warnings against "drive‑by jurisdictional rulings")
United States v. Wong, 575 U.S. 402 (2015) (FTCA statute‑of‑limitations held non‑jurisdictional)