This case arose when Kenneth D. Rucker fell down a stairway in a building owned by the United States. In connection with his fall and resulting injuries, Rucker presеnted to the Department of Labor a Standard Form 95, “Claim for Damages, Injury, or Death.” In the box labeled “AMOUNT OF CLAIM ... PERSONAL INJURY” he indicated:
in
excess of $10,000 $450,000
and in the box labeled “AMOUNT OF CLAIM ... TOTAL” he indicated:
in excess of $10,000-$450,000.
Rucker and his wife (individually and on behalf of their children) subsequently brought this action in federal district court. The defendant, Department of Labor, moved to dismiss for failure to comply with the. provision of the Federal Tort Claims Act that requires a claimant to mаke an administrative claim for a sum certain before filing suit. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); 28 C.F.R. § 14.2(a). The district court granted the motion, ruling in an oral memorandum on January 28, 1985, thаt Rucker had filed a claim “in excess of $10,450.00,” which was not a sum certain, and that his wife and the children had not filed administrative claims. The resulting оrder was filed on February 4. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration on February 25, within 10 days of receiving notice of the order, but not within 10 days of entry of the order.
On April 1, Plaintiffs filed with the district court a notice of appeal. Their appeal was dismissed on April 21 for want of prosеcution (for failure to return required forms) but was subsequently reinstated, upon a motion and late filing of the forms, on May 20.
On May 29, the district court ruled оn Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, finding that Rucker’s administrative claim had stated a sum certain ($450,000), describing the court’s prior finding as a claim for a range from $10,000 to $450,000, and setting aside the February 4 order of dismissal. The Department of Labor moved, on June 7, to set aside the May 29 order setting aside the February 4 order of dismissal. On July 11, the district court granted the motion, ruling that it had lacked jurisdiction to consider Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration because it had not been filed within 10 days as required under local rules.
The first task before this court is to untangle the various appeals and orders to determine which issues are properly before the court. As a generаl rule, a district court loses jurisdiction over an action when a party perfects an appeal unless that appeal is untimely, is an appeal from a nonappealable non-final order, or raises only issues that were previously ruled upon in that case by the appellate court. See Cochran v. Birkel,
Plaintiffs, in that appeal, first contend that the district court’s finding that Rucker had failed to make an administrative claim for a sum certain, which is a jurisdiсtional requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) and 28 C.F.R. § 14.2(a), see Allen v. United States,
The factual issue here is whether the Department of Labor had sufficient notice of Rucker’s claim for a sum certain. It is uncontested that the entire evidence of the notice Rucker provided to the Department of Labor was his filled-in Standard Form 95. Therеfore, a finding of fact with respect to whether Rucker made a claim for a sum certain must be consistent with Ruck-er’s Standard Form 95.
A literal reading of the inartful language in Rucker’s Standard Form 95 leads to only two possible interpretations: (1) that Rucker claimed damages in a range of $10,000 and above, including $450,000 and above, and (2) that Rucker claimed damages greater than $10,000 specifically: $450,000. Of the two possiblе interpretations, we find only the latter to be reasonable.
Plaintiffs also contend that the district court erred in ruling that Rucker’s wife and the children had failed to present an administrative claim, arguing that they had substantially compliеd with the requirement. In support of this contention, Plaintiffs point out that Rucker’s wife was clearly identified as such on Rucker’s Standard Form 95. We agree with the district court that this is not substantial compliance, and we conclude, as have other courts that have addressed precisely this issue, that identifying a claimant’s wife on a Standard Form 95, without more, is not sufficient to fulfill the jurisdictional requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). See, e.g., Johnson v. United States,
Accordingly, we REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Notes
. Local Rule 17(m)(l) of the district court provides that:
Any motion to alter or аmend a judgment and any motion for rehearing or reconsideration shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of such judgment or ordеr.
. Plaintiffs’ notice of appeal indicates that they appeal from the order of May 25. Because there was no ordеr on May 25, we presume that Plaintiffs intended to appeal from the order of May 29.
. This conclusion is bolstered by the district court’s extrajurisdictional order of May 29 in which the court, upon reconsideration, found that Rucker had indeed made a claim for the sum certain of $450,000.
. The district court, in its May 29 order, stated as follows:
The Court initially [on January 28] read the form as describing a range, i.e. between $10,-000 and $450,000.
If that werе the district court’s finding, it too would be inconsistent with Rucker's Standard Form 95.
. We note that even now the government does not have actual notice of a sum certain that Rucker’s wife and the children might be claiming (Plaintiffs' complaint prays for "a judgment in their favor in whatever amount they . are found to be entitled to, said amount to be in excess of Ten Thousand ($10,000) Dollars, together with costs, interest and attorney fees”).