Pina v. United States

Background

Frederick D. Pina, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a damages claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Pina alleged that on May 31, 2018, a U.S. Postal Service truck recklessly struck his vehicle, causing him personal injury and damaging his vehicle.

Before filing suit, Pina submitted an administrative claim to the Government seeking $400,000 for personal injury and $50,000 for vehicle damage. In his federal complaint, he additionally alleged that his injuries caused him to abandon his business operations. He claimed that this led to the loss of a prospective business relationship between Japanese Juices LLC and Delta Air Lines, Inc., and valued that alleged business loss at $146 million.

The opinion notes that Japanese Juices LLC’s claims had already been dismissed when the case began because Pina was proceeding without a lawyer and a limited liability company cannot be represented by a non-lawyer. This opinion directed the Clerk of Court to amend the caption to reflect that dismissal.

Government’s Motion

The Government filed a partial motion to dismiss. It argued that presenting a claim to the relevant federal agency before filing an FTCA lawsuit is a requirement for the court to hear the claim. According to the Government, Pina had presented only personal-injury and vehicle-damage claims, not a claim for lost business opportunities. The Government also argued that 28 U.S.C. § 2675(b) limited Pina’s damages to the $450,000 stated in his administrative claim, unless an exception applied for newly discovered evidence or intervening facts.

Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses recommended granting the motion to dismiss Pina’s claims for damages beyond those presented to the agency. Neither party objected to the recommendation.

Court’s Analysis

Because there were no objections, Judge Engelmayer reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake on the face of the record. He found no such error and adopted the recommendation in full.

The court discussed a recent Second Circuit decision explaining that the FTCA’s presentment requirement generally requires enough information to allow the agency to investigate the claim and estimate its value; it does not require the claimant to provide proof with the administrative claim. The court distinguished that principle from Pina’s situation because his administrative claim did not even vaguely mention lost-business damages. His claim sought a specific total of $450,000 for personal injury and vehicle damage, while his federal complaint sought $146 million for a separate category of alleged loss.

The court also concluded that Pina had not argued that the increased amount was based on newly discovered evidence or intervening facts that were unavailable when he submitted his administrative claim. The court rejected the possibility of excusing the presentment failure based on alleged Government misconduct or alleged attorney errors, stating that the requirement was jurisdictional and could not be excused on equitable grounds.

Ruling and Effect

Judge Engelmayer granted the Government’s partial motion to dismiss. The case remained limited to Pina’s personal-injury and property-damage claims up to $450,000. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion, mail Pina a copy of the decision, and amend the case caption. The opinion also stated that the parties’ failure to object to the recommendation waived appellate review of those issues.