Loeber v. United States of America

Background

Albert Wong, described in the opinion as an Army combat veteran with severe mental-health injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder, was a resident at The Pathway Home, a residential-treatment program at the veterans’ home in Yountville, California. Jennifer Golick was the program’s Clinical Director, and Christine Loeber was its Executive Director. The opinion states that, while Wong was hospitalized at the San Francisco VA Medical Center, he allegedly told United States employees that he had firearms and expressed homicidal thoughts toward Golick and Loeber. The employees allegedly did not tell the women or local law enforcement about the threats or firearms. On March 9, 2018, Wong shot and killed Golick and Loeber at The Pathway Home.

Family members of Golick and Loeber brought separate lawsuits against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging failure to report, warn, and protect and negligence. The families had also settled a related state-court case with the State of California.

Motions to dismiss

The United States moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. It argued that California’s law against double recovery required the plaintiffs to allege that their settlements had not made them whole. According to the government, a settlement that fully compensated the plaintiffs could offset their damages or eliminate their remaining claims.

The court held that the effect of the settlements could not be resolved from the complaints. California law permits a settlement with one alleged tortfeasor to reduce claims against others, but determining the applicable reduction requires determining how much of the settlement relates to economic damages and comparing it with the plaintiffs’ total damages. The court said those matters could not be decided at the pleading stage and that deciding whether the plaintiffs sought an improper double recovery would require speculation. The complaints’ requests for economic or special damages were therefore sufficient at this stage.

The court also rejected the government’s alternative request to prevent discovery until the settlement issue was resolved, explaining that the issue could not be resolved through a challenge to the pleadings.

Defendants in the Loeber case

The court had previously determined that the United States was the only proper defendant in a Federal Tort Claims Act action. The amended Loeber complaint nevertheless continued to list individual federal employees in the caption and referred to unnamed defendants. The court dismissed the individual federal employees, including the unnamed defendants, with prejudice and ordered the caption amended to leave the United States as the only defendant.

Disposition

The court granted the motions to dismiss the federal employees with prejudice and otherwise denied the motions to dismiss. The order resolved the motions in both cases: ECF No. 54 in Loeber and ECF No. 61 in Golick.