Wodajo v. United States Postal Service, 2:15-cv-01893

Plaintiff Mitiku Geleta Wodajo sued the United States Postal Service in King County small claims court alleging certified mail was not delivered or proof of delivery was not placed in his mailbox, seeking $4,187.70.
The United States removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).
USPS moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing the claim is barred by the FTCA’s postal-service and related exceptions and that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies under 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a).
Plaintiff did not file any opposition to the motion; the court treated the failure to oppose as an admission the motion had merit under Local Rule 7(b)(2).
The Court held that claims alleging negligent or intentional non-delivery of mail fall within FTCA exceptions (28 U.S.C. § 2680(b) and § 2680(h)) and dismissed the complaint; the court did not resolve the exhaustion issue as it dismissed on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claims about nondelivery or mishandling of mail are barred by the FTCA postal-service exception	Wodajo alleges USPS failed to deliver certified mail or provide proof of delivery and seeks damages	USPS contends § 2680(b) bars any claim "arising out of" loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of mail (and § 2680(h) bars related misrepresentation/willful conduct claims)	Court held claims are barred by FTCA exceptions and dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6)
Whether plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies under the FTCA before suing	Wodajo filed suit in small claims court and did not show an administrative claim was presented	USPS presented evidence plaintiff did not file the required administrative claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) and exhaustion is jurisdictional	Court did not resolve exhaustion because it dismissed on statutory FTCA exceptions, but noted exhaustion is a jurisdictional prerequisite and Plaintiff had not shown compliance

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (subject-matter jurisdiction is threshold issue)
Baker v. Riverside County Office of Educ., 584 F.3d 821 (pleading standards on Rule 12(b)(6) in Ninth Circuit)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions vs. factual allegations)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (facial plausibility standard)
United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (sovereign immunity principles)
Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103 (FTCA waiver strictly construed)
United States v. Nordic Vill., Inc., 503 U.S. 30 (strict construction of FTCA waiver)
Jerves v. United States, 966 F.2d 517 (FTCA waiver and scope)
Molzof v. United States, 502 U.S. 301 (§ 2680 exceptions and government operations)
Anderson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 761 F.2d 527 (postal-service exception bars package-loss claims)
Dolan v. U.S. Postal Serv., 546 U.S. 481 (Congress intended to retain immunity for harms from nondelivery or late delivery)
McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (administrative exhaustion is prerequisite under FTCA)
Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499 (administrative-claim requirement is jurisdictional)
United States v. Neustadt, 366 U.S. 696 (§ 2680(h) covers negligent and willful misrepresentation)