G.G. v. United States

Background

G.G., a minor represented by Guardian Ad Litem Stefanie Gulick, sued the United States of America, Open Door Community Health Clinic, and Steffen Lassen. The complaint asserted claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), a law that allows certain claims against the United States for torts committed by federal employees. The United States moved to dismiss the complaint or strike portions of it. The court decided the motion based on the written submissions and vacated the scheduled hearing.

Court’s analysis

The court agreed that the United States was the only proper defendant in the action. It therefore dismissed Open Door Community Health Clinic and Steffen Lassen.

Because the United States was the only remaining defendant and the claims arose under the FTCA, the court struck G.G.’s jury demand. The court relied on Ninth Circuit authority holding that jury trials are not permitted for FTCA claims.

The court dismissed the portion of the First Claim for Relief titled “Negligence” that was based on alleged negligent training or supervision of employees. It held that the FTCA’s discretionary-function exception barred that theory because the complaint did not allege facts showing that the challenged training and supervision decisions were outside the kinds of policy-based judgments covered by the exception. The court noted that G.G.’s opposition referred to mandatory directives concerning supervision and training, but the complaint did not refer to those directives, so the court did not consider that argument at that time.

The court also dismissed the Second Claim for Relief, titled “Negligent Supervision [and] Training,” for the same reasons. The court dismissed the Third Claim for Relief, titled “Res Ispa Loquitor,” because res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary doctrine used to support a negligence claim, not an independent cause of action.

Disposition

Judge Chesney granted the United States’ motion to dismiss or, alternatively, strike, as follows:

- Claims against Open Door Community Health Clinic and Steffen Lassen were dismissed. - G.G.’s jury demand was stricken. - The portion of the First Claim for Relief based on negligent supervision and negligent training was dismissed with leave to amend. - The Second Claim for Relief was dismissed with leave to amend. - The Third Claim for Relief was dismissed.

G.G. could file a First Amended Complaint by September 11, 2020. If no amended complaint was filed by that deadline, the action would proceed on the remaining portions of the First Claim for Relief. The court continued the case-management conference from October 9, 2020, to November 20, 2020, and required a joint case-management statement by November 13, 2020.