Ponomarenko v. Galens
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:24-cv-07913
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Ponomarenko v. Galens, Judge Chhabria granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend because the complaint named improper defendants and lacked required allegations.
The plaintiffs’ negligence claim was dismissed with leave to amend; the order also identified the United States, rather than Jeffrey Galens or the Department of Veterans Affairs, as the proper defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
What happened
In Ponomarenko v. Galens, the plaintiffs brought a negligence claim based on conduct by Jeffrey Galens, whom the government said was acting within the scope of his federal employment.
The court explained that the United States, rather than Galens or the Department of Veterans Affairs, was the proper defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The complaint also did not say whether the plaintiffs had completed the Act’s required administrative process or provide facts supporting a viable negligence claim.
Judge Vince Chhabria granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The plaintiffs were given 21 days to file an amended complaint, and the initial case-management conference was continued to March 28, 2025.
The detailed version
- Ponomarenko v. Galens · No. 3:24-cv-07913
- Vince Chhabria
- Jan. 28, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs asserted a negligence claim based on alleged conduct by Jeffrey Galens. In its notice of removal, the government certified that Galens was acting within the scope of his federal employment when the alleged conduct occurred.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that the Federal Tort Claims Act is the exclusive way for the plaintiffs to overcome the federal government’s sovereign immunity for the negligence claim. Because Galens was certified as acting within the scope of his federal employment, the United States—not Galens or the Department of Veterans Affairs—was the proper defendant under that Act.
The complaint did not allege whether the plaintiffs had satisfied the Act’s exhaustion requirement. That requirement must be met for the court to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim. The court also found that the complaint contained no factual allegations from which it could infer that the plaintiffs had a viable negligence claim.
Ruling and next steps
The court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The plaintiffs had stated in their opposition that, if allowed to amend, they could satisfy the Federal Tort Claims Act’s requirements and allege facts supporting a cause of action. Any amended complaint was due within 21 days of the order. The court also continued the initial case-management conference from February 14, 2025, to March 28, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.