Beck v. Camp Pendleton and Quantico Housing LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: March 12, 2021
• Docket: 3:20-cv-00579
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON BECK, et al. Case No.: 20cv579-LAB (WVG)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. DISMISS

14 CAMP PENDLETON AND [DOCKET NUMBER 33.] QUANTICO HOUSING, LLC, et al. 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 This case is related to case 20cv567, Clover v. Camp Pendleton and 19 Quantico Housing, though the actions are not consolidated. It was originally filed 20 in California state court, but Defendants removed it, citing federal enclave, federal 21 agency, and federal officer jurisdiction. 22 The parties in this action and Clover are represented by the same law firms, 23 and the claims are similar, though not exactly the same. Although each case 24 concerned slightly different maintenance issues, in both cases residents of military 25 housing are suing the contractors who leased them the housing and were 26 responsible for maintaining it. 27 In Clover, the plaintiffs alleged that because of poor maintenance, their home 28 was infested with mold, which injured them. In this case, the plaintiffs are alleging 1 failure to disclose building defects that resulted in excessive moisture intruding into 2 their home, and for failing to correct the defects after Plaintiffs moved in. They 3 allege that the property had problems with kitchen leaks, lack of running water, 4 damp floors and ceilings, and water collecting under linoleum. They also allege 5 that the air conditioner did not function properly, and that the property harbored 6 harmful dust mites. They bring their claims under slightly different state law 7 theories, but the analysis necessary for adjudication of the two motions is the 8 same. 9 In this case, as in Clover, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Fed. 10 R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). (Docket no. 33.) They argue that, as government contractors 11 acting within the scope of Congressionally-delegated authority, they are entitled to 12 derivative immunity under Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Constr. Co., 309 U.S. 18 (1940) 13 and its progeny. They also argue that they are entitled to the benefit of the 14 “discretionary function” exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), as 15 provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2860(a). 16 As in Clover, the United States filed a statement of interest pursuant to 28 17 U.S.C. § 517, in the form of a brief with attached evidence. (Docket no. 43.) The 18 government takes the position that Defendants are not entitled to immunity. 19 Defendants filed a reply to the government’s statement. The motion is now fully 20 briefed and ready for decision. 21 The briefing and arguments are substantially the same as in Clover. While 22 the claims are somewhat different, Defendants’ motions are materially 23 indistinguishable. A complete, reasoned order is being issued in Clover 24 contemporaneously with this one, and it denies Defendants’ motion in that case. 25 The Court’s reasoning there applies with equal force here. 26 It is unclear whether Yearsley immunity is jurisdictional, but whether it is or 27 not, Defendants’ motion cannot succeed. If it is not jurisdictional, Defendants 28 cannot properly seek dismissal in a Rule 12(b)(1) motion relying on evidence. But 1 even if it is, Defendants are not entitled to Years/ley immunity. The FTCA does not 2 ||cover these claims. For the same reasons as the motion to dismiss is being denied 3 Clover, Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action (Docket no. 33) is DENIED as 4 || well. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ||Dated: March 12, 2021 8 ( iM 4. JB wy 9 Honorable Larry Alan Burns 40 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28