Cadwalder v. U.S.

123 Citing cases

  1. Vacek v. United States Postal Service

    No. C 02-1406 VRW (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2004)

    West v. Federal Aviation Administration, 830 F.2d 1044, 1046 (9th Cir 1987). The FTCA waives the United States' sovereign immunity for certain tort claims caused by the negligence or wrongful acts or omissions of United States employees while acting within the scope of their office or employment. Smith v. United States, 507 U.S. 197, 201 (1993); Cadwalder v. United States, 45 F.3d 297, 300 (9th Cir 1995); 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). With respect to FTCA claims, the Supreme Court has noted that "in the long run, experience teaches us that strict adherence to the procedural requirements specified by the legislature is the best guarantee of evenhanded administration of the law."

  2. Thompson v. United States

    Case No. 3:16-cv-00654-YY (D. Or. Apr. 5, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    "The Federal Tort Claims Act waives the United States' sovereign immunity for actions in tort," permitting claimants to sue the government in district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); Cadwalder v. United States, 45 F.3d 297, 300 (9th Cir. 1995). But, importantly, the FTCA sets up an administrative process that a claimant must adhere to before a district court may hear the claim.

  3. Moretti v. Letty Owings Ctr.

    3:21-cv-1525-SI (D. Or. Sep. 25, 2023)   Cited 3 times
    In Moretti v. Letty Owings Ctr., No. 3:21-CV-1525-SI, 2023 WL 6216279 (D. Or. Sept. 25, 2023), as in Hale, the case was before the court on a motion by purportedly immune defendants to substitute the United States as the sole defendant under the FSHCAA and the FTCA made in a negligence action against them as employees of a federally supported health center.

    McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (“FTCA bars claimants from bringing suit in federal court until they have exhausted their administrative remedies.”); see also Cadwalder v. United States, 45 F.3d 297, 300 (9th Cir. 1995) (stating that the FTCA “administrative claim prerequisite is jurisdictional”). The FTCA establishes that a tort claim against the United States is barred if not presented to the appropriate federal agency within two years of accrual or brought in within six months of from a final written denial by the federal agency.

  4. Lexington Ins. Co. v. United States

    465 F. Supp. 3d 1158 (W.D. Wash. 2020)   Cited 4 times
    Finding that an administrative claim filed by an insured exhausted the remedies for the insurer where the claims were the same

    The FTCA waives the United States’ sovereign immunity for tort actions and allows plaintiffs to sue in district court if they "first give the appropriate federal agency the opportunity to resolve the claim." Cadwalder v. United States , 45 F.3d 297, 300 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) ). "This administrative claim prerequisite is jurisdictional." Id. (citing Jerves v. United States , 966 F.2d 517, 518 (9th Cir. 1992) ).

  5. S.H. v. United States

    32 F. Supp. 3d 1111 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

    Since the presentation of an administrative claim is jurisdictional, it is plaintiffs' burden to establish that they met the administrative claim requirement of the FTCA. See Cadwalder v. U.S., 45 F.3d 297, 300–01 (9th Cir.1995). The FTCA waives the government's immunity for tort claims only if the plaintiff has first “presented” the claim to the appropriate federal agency and been turned down. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a).

  6. Swanson v. United States

    CASE NO. 10-cv-2363 - IEG (NLS) (S.D. Cal. May. 8, 2012)

    Specifically, "[s]ection 2675(a) requires the claimant or his legal representative to file (1) a written statement sufficiently describing the injury to enable the agency to begin its own investigation, and (2) a sum certain damages claim." Cadwalder v. United States, 45 F.3d 297, 301 (9th Cir. 1995). This exhaustion requirement serves the important objective of encouraging the "administrative settlement of claims against the United States and thereby to prevent an unnecessary burdening of the courts."

  7. Valadez–lopez v. Chertoff

    656 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 271 times
    Holding that "[t]here is nothing in the statute or our case law that would prevent a plaintiff from amending an existing complaint asserting non-FTCA claims to name the United States as a defendant and include FTCA claims once those claims have been administratively exhausted"

    “The requirement of an administrative claim is jurisdictional.” Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir.2000) (citing Cadwalder v. United States, 45 F.3d 297, 300 (9th Cir.1995)). “Because the requirement is jurisdictional, it ‘must be strictly adhered to.

  8. Vacek v. U.S. Postal Service

    447 F.3d 1248 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 407 times
    Holding that the mailbox rule does not apply to claims brought under the FTCA

    Any such waiver must be strictly construed in favor of the United States. Section 2675(a) establishes explicit prerequisites to the filing of suit against the Government in district court. It admits of no exceptions. Given the clarity of the statutory language, we cannot enlarge that consent to be sued which the Government, through Congress, has undertaken so carefully to limit.Jerves v. United States, 966 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also Cadwalder v. United States, 45 F.3d 297, 300 (9th Cir. 1995). We are not allowed to proceed in the absence of fulfillment of the conditions merely because dismissal would visit a harsh result upon the plaintiff.

  9. Morrison v. United States

    CV 24-34-BLG-DWM (D. Mont. Oct. 18, 2024)

    In the Ninth Circuit, “[t]he requirement of an administrative claim is jurisdictional.” Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Cadwalder v. United States, 45 F.3d 297, 300 (9th Cir. 1995)). “Because the requirement is jurisdictional, it ‘must be strictly adhered to.

  10. Martinez v. United States

    3:23-cv-00318-YY (D. Or. Sep. 11, 2023)

    “The Federal Tort Claims Act waives the United States' sovereign immunity for actions in tort.” Cadwalder v. United States, 45 F.3d 297, 300 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Jerves v. United States, 966 F.2d 517, 518 (9th Cir. 1992)). “The Act allows claimants to sue the government in district court provided that they first give the appropriate federal agency the opportunity to resolve the claim.