Cortez v. United States of America

Background

The plaintiffs, Charles Cortez and Hilda Cortez, alleged that their adult son, Michael Cortez, was shot and killed on September 13, 2021, by an agent employed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Their Third Amended Complaint asserted two claims against the United States: a wrongful-death negligence claim and a survival claim based on alleged assault and battery. The claims had also been brought on behalf of two of Michael Cortez’s minor children, but the court previously dismissed those claims after counsel withdrew and new counsel did not appear for the minors.

The United States moved to dismiss the Cortezes’ claims. The court evaluated whether the complaint alleged statutory standing, meaning the plaintiffs’ legal authority under the applicable statute to bring the claims.

Wrongful-Death Claim

The court held that the Cortezes had not alleged facts establishing statutory standing for their wrongful-death claim. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a claim against the United States for wrongful death is governed by the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. Applying California law, the court explained that when a decedent had surviving children, the decedent’s parents may bring a wrongful-death claim only if they were dependent on the decedent for the necessities of life. The Cortezes did not allege facts showing that they were dependent on Michael.

Survival Claim

The court also held that the Cortezes had not alleged facts establishing statutory standing for the survival claim. A survival action may be brought by the decedent’s successor in interest. That generally requires showing that the person is a beneficiary of the decedent’s estate or otherwise succeeded to a cause of action belonging to the decedent.

The court found that the Cortezes did not allege that they were beneficiaries of Michael’s estate. The opinion further explained that, because Michael was alleged to have been unmarried and to have had children, California law would not make his parents beneficiaries of his intestate estate if he died without a will. The Cortezes also did not allege another basis showing that they succeeded to Michael’s claims, such as being beneficiaries under a trust instrument.

Disposition

The court granted the United States’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the Third Amended Complaint. The court granted the Cortezes leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint to cure the identified deficiencies. Any such complaint was due by September 20, 2024.