2:22-cv-01489
W.D. Wash.Apr 27, 2023Background:
- On February 9, 2022, plaintiff Oby Lillian Danielle Obuora-Nwalakor (a USPS Parcel Post Distributor) was assaulted at a USPS processing center in Tukwila, Washington.
- Plaintiff sued (filed 10/20/2022) asserting assault/battery against the assailant and premises-liability/ failure-to-intervene claims against USPS and unnamed USPS employees.
- Plaintiff filed a OWCP/FECA claim on 2/11/2022; OWCP accepted the claim on 3/15/2022 and paid medical expenses and lost wages.
- USPS moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing (inter alia) FECA preemption of FTCA recovery, that the United States (not USPS) is the proper FTCA defendant, and that the intentional-tort exception applies.
- The district court found Plaintiff had a colorable FECA claim because the injuries occurred at work, held FECA preempted the FTCA claim, dismissed the complaint with prejudice (did not reach the other FTCA arguments), and denied the plaintiff’s timing-based objection as irrelevant.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FECA preempts FTCA recovery | Injuries were not sustained while performing employment duties; thus FTCA claim should proceed | Plaintiff’s workplace injuries are compensable under FECA, so FECA preempts FTCA remedies | FECA preempts FTCA; court lacks jurisdiction over FTCA claim (dismissed with prejudice) |
| Proper FTCA defendant (US vs USPS) | FTCA claim against USPS is permissible | United States is the proper defendant under the FTCA | Not reached (dismissal based on FECA preemption made addressing this unnecessary) |
| FTCA intentional-tort exception (disallowing FTCA for intentional torts) | Plaintiff did not concede intentional-tort bar applies | USPS argued the intentional-tort exception would bar recovery | Not reached (court declined to address after resolving FECA preemption) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts have limited jurisdiction and party invoking jurisdiction bears burden)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (court must dismiss if it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction)
- PW Arms, Inc. v. United States, 186 F. Supp. 3d 1137 (W.D. Wash. 2016) (district court may consider evidence beyond the complaint in factual jurisdictional challenges)
- Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2003) (courts may review materials beyond pleadings on jurisdictional factual challenges)
- McCarthy v. United States, 850 F.2d 558 (9th Cir. 1988) (district court may rely on affidavits and testimony to resolve jurisdictional facts)
- Moe v. United States, 326 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2003) (if compensation is available under FECA, other statutory remedies arising from same facts are preempted)