Park v. Transportation Security Administration

W.D. Washington

Park v. Transportation Security Administration

DecidedOctober 3, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-01369

StatusUnknown

This text of Park v. Transportation Security Administration (Park v. Transportation Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Park v. Transportation Security Administration, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 JANE PARK, CASE NO. C23-1369-KKE 8

Plaintiff(s), ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 9 MOTION TO DISMISS v. 10

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 11 ADMINISTRATION,

12 Defendant(s).

13 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 3. Ms. 14 Park, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of small claim in King County District Court in December 15 2022, contending that her handbag was damaged during a security check at the airport. See Dkt. 16 No. 1 & Ex. A. 17 Defendant Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”) removed that action to this 18 Court on September 5, 2023, and the same day filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Ms. Park’s 19 complaint should be dismissed because Ms. Park failed to exhaust her administrative remedies 20 before filing suit or, alternatively, because she did not properly serve TSA. Dkt. Nos. 1, 3. TSA 21 e-mailed and mailed a copy of the motion to Ms. Park. See Dkt. No. 3 at 8. Ms. Park did not file 22 an opposition or otherwise respond to TSA’s motion. See Dkt. No. 9. 23 24 1 The Court agrees with TSA that Ms. Park’s notice of small claim for monetary damages 2 was prematurely filed because Ms. Park has not yet exhausted her administrative remedies. See 3 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 107 (1993) (“An action shall not be

4 instituted upon a claim against the United States for money damages unless the claimant has first 5 exhausted his administrative remedies.”). Ms. Park filed a claim with TSA in September 2022, 6 and TSA’s claims management branch notified her in November 2022 that her claim was deficient 7 because it “fails to specify the exact amount that you seek as compensation for your damage, loss, 8 or injury.” See Dkt. No. 4, Exs. A & B. Ms. Park did not subsequently amend her claim or provide 9 any other correspondence. Dkt. No. 4 ¶ 7. As noted above, Ms. Park filed her notice of small 10 claim in December 2022. See Dkt. No. 1, Ex. A. Nonetheless, it appears that Ms. Park’s 11 administrative claim remains open at this time. Dkt. No. 4 ¶ 8. 12 Because Ms. Park’s failure to exhaust her administrative remedies deprives the Court of

13 subject matter jurisdiction, the Court GRANTS TSA’s unopposed motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 3. 14 Ms. Park may choose to pursue her administrative claim with TSA, but this matter is DISMISSED. 15 Dated this 3rd day of October, 2023. 16 A 17 Kymberly K. Evanson 18 United States District Judge

20 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 JANE PARK, CASE NO. C23-1369-KKE 8

Plaintiff(s), ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 9 MOTION TO DISMISS v. 10

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 11 ADMINISTRATION,

12 Defendant(s).

13 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 3. Ms. 14 Park, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of small claim in King County District Court in December 15 2022, contending that her handbag was damaged during a security check at the airport. See Dkt. 16 No. 1 & Ex. A. 17 Defendant Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”) removed that action to this 18 Court on September 5, 2023, and the same day filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Ms. Park’s 19 complaint should be dismissed because Ms. Park failed to exhaust her administrative remedies 20 before filing suit or, alternatively, because she did not properly serve TSA. Dkt. Nos. 1, 3. TSA 21 e-mailed and mailed a copy of the motion to Ms. Park. See Dkt. No. 3 at 8. Ms. Park did not file 22 an opposition or otherwise respond to TSA’s motion. See Dkt. No. 9. 23 24 1 The Court agrees with TSA that Ms. Park’s notice of small claim for monetary damages 2 was prematurely filed because Ms. Park has not yet exhausted her administrative remedies. See 3 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 107 (1993) (“An action shall not be

4 instituted upon a claim against the United States for money damages unless the claimant has first 5 exhausted his administrative remedies.”). Ms. Park filed a claim with TSA in September 2022, 6 and TSA’s claims management branch notified her in November 2022 that her claim was deficient 7 because it “fails to specify the exact amount that you seek as compensation for your damage, loss, 8 or injury.” See Dkt. No. 4, Exs. A & B. Ms. Park did not subsequently amend her claim or provide 9 any other correspondence. Dkt. No. 4 ¶ 7. As noted above, Ms. Park filed her notice of small 10 claim in December 2022. See Dkt. No. 1, Ex. A. Nonetheless, it appears that Ms. Park’s 11 administrative claim remains open at this time. Dkt. No. 4 ¶ 8. 12 Because Ms. Park’s failure to exhaust her administrative remedies deprives the Court of

13 subject matter jurisdiction, the Court GRANTS TSA’s unopposed motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 3. 14 Ms. Park may choose to pursue her administrative claim with TSA, but this matter is DISMISSED. 15 Dated this 3rd day of October, 2023. 16 A 17 Kymberly K. Evanson 18 United States District Judge

20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Park v. Transportation Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/park-v-transportation-security-administration-wawd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack