Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Galto v. United States

United States District Court, D. Arizona

May 15, 2014

Anthony Galto, Plaintiff,
v.
United States of America, Defendant.

ORDER

DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge.

Defendant has moved for summary judgment on all claims in Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint. Doc. 48. The motion has been fully briefed and no party has requested oral argument. For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant the motion.

I. Background.

Plaintiff was a truck driver for Eagle Express lines, a contract trucking company that handled mail for the United States Postal Service ("USPS"). Doc. 49, ¶ 1. On April 15, 2011, Plaintiff was unloading mail cages at the General Mail Facility in Phoenix when a USPS employee, Jeff Mollohan, allegedly grew angry with Plaintiff for placing mail cages in Mollohan's way and threw three mail cages at Plaintiff in succession. Doc. 48 at 2; Doc. 49, ¶¶ 4-13. Plaintiff claims that Mollohan also charged him with clenched fists and shouted obscenities and threats. Doc. 49, ¶¶ 12-15. Plaintiff reported the incident to his supervisor, describing it as an assault, and typed out a statement that described it the same way. Id., ¶¶ 22-24.

Plaintiff made a claim with the USPS for $522, 073.16, which was denied in writing on November 15, 2012. Doc. 1 at 1. Plaintiff then brought this action, seeking damages from the United States for the actions of Mollohan and for negligently retaining and supervising Mollohan. Id. at 2-3.

II. Analysis.

Congress has waived the sovereign immunity of the United States in the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), but only for certain torts. The waiver does not extend to claims "arising out of assault, battery, " and other enumerated intentional torts. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h); Sabow v. United States, 93 F.3d 1445, 1456 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, Plaintiff can bring a claim against the United States for the negligence of Mollohan or other government employees, but not for their intentional torts.

Plaintiff's complaint includes a claim for negligent retention and supervision, but Defendant's motion contends that Plaintiff has no evidence to support such a claim. Plaintiff concedes that the record does not support a claim for negligent retention and supervision of Mollohan and that Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on this claim. Doc. 50 at 1.

Plaintiff's complaint also includes a claim for Mollohan's alleged injury of Plaintiff. Defendant argues that this claim is based on an intentional tort by Mollohan and therefore is barred by § 2680(h). Plaintiff argues that summary judgment is not warranted because genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Mollohan acted intentionally or negligently in causing Plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff's third amended complaint alleges that "Defendant's employee, JEFF MOLLOHAN, negligently shoved metal cages into Plaintiff resulting in serious injuries." Doc. 16 at 2.

In deciding whether Plaintiff's claim is barred by § 2680(h), the Court must look beyond Plaintiff's classification of the cause of action to examine whether the conduct upon which the claim is based constitutes one of the torts listed in § 2680(h)." Sabow, 93 F.3d at 1456; see also Mt. Homes, Inc. v. United States, 912 F.2d 352, 356 (9th Cir.1990) ("[W]e look beyond [the complaint's] characterization [of the cause of action] to the conduct on which the claim is based."); Thomas-Lazear v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 851 F.2d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir.1988) ("This circuit looks beyond the labels used to determine whether a proposed claim is barred [by the intentional torts exception]"). As the Supreme Court has explained, Plaintiff cannot avoid the intentional-tort bar of § 2680(h) through a "semantical recasting of events." United States v. Shearer, 473 U.S. 52, 55 (1985).

The evidence in this case simply does not support a claim of negligence on the part of Mollohan. When Plaintiff was deposed, he provided this description of Mollohan's actions:

Q: Is there any chance that the three cages that he - that he pushed toward you were an accident?
A: No.
* * ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.