Singh v. American Postal Workers Union Oakland Local 78
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:19-cv-06659
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Singh v. American Postal Workers Union Oakland Local 78, Judge Chhabria granted dismissal, substituted the United States, dismissed claims, and remanded the union claims.
Singh’s claims against the federal employees, the United States, and the union were affected. The United States replaced the federal employees as the defendant for the remaining claims; those claims were dismissed, while the claims against the union were remanded to Alameda County Superior Court.
What happened
In Singh v. American Postal Workers Union Oakland Local 78, the federal defendants asked the court to dismiss Singh’s third amended complaint. The Postal Service had certified that the federal employees acted within their employment duties, while Singh alleged they acted maliciously during a workplace dispute.
The court concluded that Singh had not alleged enough to overcome the Postal Service’s certification. It therefore substituted the United States for the federal employees. The court also said the Federal Tort Claims Act barred Singh’s remaining claims because they arose from alleged assault, battery, libel, slander, misrepresentation, or deceit.
The court granted the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissed the claims against the United States, and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the claims against the union, the only remaining defendant. Judge Vince Chhabria ordered the case remanded to Alameda County Superior Court.
The detailed version
- Singh v. American Postal Workers Union Oakland Local 78 · No. 3:19-cv-06659
- Vince Chhabria
- Jan. 17, 2020
Background
Singh sued American Postal Workers Union Oakland Local 78 and federal employee defendants. The order concerns the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss Singh’s third amended complaint. The opinion states that the Postal Service certified that the federal employees were acting within the scope of their employment. Singh alleged that the employees acted maliciously and argued that this placed their conduct outside the scope of employment.
Scope of Employment and Substitution
The court applied California law to determine whether the employees acted within the scope of their employment because the underlying events occurred in California. It concluded that the alleged tortious conduct arose from a workplace dispute. Under the principles cited by the court, malicious or willful conduct may still fall within the scope of employment when it arises out of or relates to the employee’s work. The court found that Singh had not presented allegations that, if true, would establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the employees exceeded that scope.
The court therefore substituted the United States as the defendant for the remaining claims against the federal employees.
Federal Tort Claims Act
The court stated that it had already determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Singh’s claims against the United States for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and libel. It further concluded that the remaining claims related to proceedings arising from the alleged battery and smear campaign underlying Singh’s complaint. Because the Federal Tort Claims Act bars claims arising from assault, battery, libel, slander, misrepresentation, or deceit, the court ruled that those claims against the United States must be dismissed.
Disposition
The court granted the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss. It declined to exercise jurisdiction over the claims against the union, which was the only remaining defendant, and directed the Clerk to remand the case to Alameda County Superior Court. The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. Judge Vince Chhabria signed the order on January 17, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.