Sorace Ex Rel. Estate of Sorace v. United States
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8711
8th Cir.2015Background
- Sorace, as Administratix of two estates and guardian of a minor, sues the United States under FTCA for negligent police action on the Rosebud Sioux Indian Reservation.
- Dillon, an intoxicated driver, killed Melanie Sorace and her daughter; Sorace alleges RST PD failed to locate/arrest Dillon.
- District court dismissed under FRCP 12(b)(1),(6) for lack of a legally actionable duty and no adequate special relationship.
- FTCA requires private-analogue liability to be analyzed under state law where the act occurred; the relevant law here is South Dakota law.
- Court reviews de novo; district court correctly applied SD law and dismissed for lack of duty or lack of a special-duty finding.
- Court analyzes private citizen negligence and public-duty/special-duty theories under SD law and finds both fail
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does FTCA liability attach under SD law given no duty or special-duty here? | Sorace argues RST PD breached a duty by failing to stop Dillon. | US contends SD law imposes no actionable duty and no special relationship. | Yes, district court dismissal upheld; no actionable duty under SD law. |
| Does the public-duty/special-duty exception apply under SD law? | Sorace asserts a special-duty owed to her family. | US contends no special-duty exists; general public duty governs. | No; Tipton factors not satisfied; no special duty. |
| Did the district court improperly consider affidavits outside the pleadings and convert to summary judgment? | Sorace argued the court relied on affidavits showing knowledge. | US argued proper Rule 12(b)(6) analysis; no conversion. | No conversion; court did not rely on outside-pleadings. |
| Was leave to amend appropriate or futile given inadequate Tipton factors? | Sorace sought to cure defects via amendment. | Amendment would be futile; procedural rules not followed. | No abuse of discretion; amendment futile and not properly noticed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must show plausible entitlement to relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for facially plausible claims)
- LaFromboise v. Leavitt, 439 F.3d 792 (8th Cir. 2006) (private analogue under FTCA anchored to state law)
- Klett v. Pim, 965 F.2d 587 (8th Cir. 1992) (state law governs FTCA private analogue; tribal context irrelevant without state analogue)
- Tipton v. Town of Tabor (Tipton I), 538 N.W.2d 783 (S.D. 1995) (four-part test for special duty under SD law)
- Tipton v. Town of Tabor (Tipton II), 567 N.W.2d 351 (S.D. 1997) (refines the four-part special-duty test; reliance and intent required)
- Pray v. City of Flandreau, 801 N.W.2d 451 (S.D. 2011) (duty owed to individual or class, not to public at large)
- Walther v. KPKA Meadowlands Ltd. P'ship, 581 N.W.2d 527 (S.D. 1998) (public-duty rule and its limits under SD law)