Pina v. United States

Background

Frederick D. Pina sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act after a United States Postal Service truck struck a vehicle he was driving. His complaint sought damages for personal injury, vehicle damage, insurance and repair costs, and alleged business losses, including a claimed lost opportunity involving Delta Airlines.

The Government filed a partial motion to dismiss the claims beyond personal injury and vehicle damage. It argued that Pina had not first presented those business-related claims to the Government, as required before bringing a Federal Tort Claims Act action. Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses recommended granting that motion, and the district court adopted the recommendation on May 12, 2021, partially dismissing Pina’s claims.

Pina later moved to oppose the recommendation and reinstate the dismissed claims. He argued that he had not received a copy of the recommendation and that his former lawyer had committed malpractice. Magistrate Judge Moses recommended denying the motion. Pina objected, arguing again that his lawyer’s conduct should excuse the failure to present the business-related claims, that he could not be legally separated from Japanese Juices, LLC, and that an email to a Postal Service employee satisfied the presentment requirement. He also alleged judicial bias.

Legal standard

The court treated Pina’s motion as seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which permits a court to relieve a party from an order in limited circumstances, including mistake, excusable neglect, or extraordinary circumstances. The court reviewed Pina’s objections and applied the standards governing objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected Pina’s argument that alleged malpractice by his former lawyer justified relief. Pina had previously made that argument, and the court had already considered and rejected it. The alleged lawyer error occurred years before the recommendation and did not explain Pina’s failure to object after the court gave him additional time and notice of the deadline.

The court also rejected Pina’s argument that he was a sole proprietor who could not be separated from Japanese Juices. That argument repeated an issue already decided and did not identify a mistake warranting relief under Rule 60(b).

The court declined to reconsider the case based on Pina’s email to a Postal Service employee because Pina raised the email for the first time in his objections. The court nevertheless addressed the email and concluded that its statement about a lost $146 million business opportunity did not provide enough information for the Postal Service to investigate and value the claim. The court further stated that, as described, the claim appeared to concern interference with contract rights, a category for which the Federal Tort Claims Act does not waive the Government’s sovereign immunity.

The court also rejected Pina’s allegations of bias as improper and insufficient grounds for reconsideration. It noted that the court had given Pina additional time to respond and that Magistrate Judge Moses had taken steps to address his mailing and address problems.

Ruling

Judge Engelmayer adopted Magistrate Judge Moses’s recommendation and denied Pina’s motion. The court did not reinstate the previously dismissed business-related claims. The court stated that Pina’s claims for personal injury and vehicle damage remained alive and that the case continued under Magistrate Judge Moses’s general pretrial supervision.