Kwai Wong v. David Beebe
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20544
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- FTCA §2401(b) time limits may be equitably tolled; this case was heard en banc to resolve that issue.
- Plaintiffs Wong and the Association pursued FTCA negligence claims arising from Wong’s confinement after administrative exhaustion.
- Wong filed an FTCA claim and sought to amend the complaint during the six-month tolling window after final agency denial.
- INS denied Wong’s administrative claim on December 3, 2001, restarting the six-month tolling period; the amended FTCA claim was filed August 13, 2002.
- District court treated §2401(b) as jurisdictional, barring the FTCA claim; panel later reversed and remanded for tolling analysis.
- Court ultimately held that Wong is entitled to equitable tolling under the Irwin framework, reversing Marley and allowing the FTCA claim to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2401(b) is jurisdictional | Wong argues tolling applies; §2401(b) is nonjurisdictional. | Government argues §2401(b) is jurisdictional and not tollable. | Nonjurisdictional; tolling allowed |
| Whether Irwin presumption applies to FTCA timing | Irwin tolling presumption should apply to FTCA claims. | Irwin presumption may be overcome by clear statutory text. | Irwin presumption applies |
| Whether Wong's filing was timely under tolling | External delays and agency-denial timing justify tolling. | Timeliness should be evaluated strictly within the six-month window. | Wong entitled to tolling; FTCA claim may proceed |
| What standard governs tolling in this FTCA context | Traditional equitable tolling principles apply (diligence and extraordinary circumstances). | Consideration of special statutory structure may limit tolling. | Traditional equitable tolling standards apply; tolling appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Kubrick v. United States, 444 U.S. 111 (U.S. 1979) (statute of limitations encouraging prompt filing and tolling considerations)
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1993) (exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional but allows liberal pleading after denial)
- Henderson v. Shinseki, 131 S. Ct. 1197 (S. Ct. 2011) (clear statement test for jurisdictional labeling of time limits)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (S. Ct. 2007) (jurisdictional notice-of-appeal deadline analysis)
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (S. Ct. 2010) (not all statutory deadlines are jurisdictional; text/context matter)
- John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (S. Ct. 2008) (distinguishes jurisdictional vs nonjurisdictional time limits; 'clear statement' framework)
- Auburn Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Barton, 133 S. Ct. 817 (S. Ct. 2013) (not all deadlines in statute are jurisdictional; context matters)
- Marley v. United States, 567 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2009) (earlier panel holding §2401(b) jurisdictional; en banc overruled)
- Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 107 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 1996) (early FTCA tolling recognition; context for tolling discussion)
- Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Shalala, 125 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 1997) (nonjurisdictional treatment of §2401(a) predate later reanalysis)
- Rouse v. U.S. Dept. of State, 567 F.3d 408 (9th Cir. 2009) (privacy act tolling context supporting equitable tolling where appropriate)
- Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (S. Ct. 2010) (AEDPA tolling is nonjurisdictional; supports Irwin presumption)