Matthews v. Chorno et al

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12

E.D. Pa.February 8, 2017

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA _____________________________________ : THEODORE MATTHEWS, : : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION : v. : NO. 17-cv-483 : GABREIL J. CHORNO and : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : Defendants. : ____________________________________ : ORDER AND NOW, this day of , 2017, upon consideration of defendant United States of America’s motion to dismiss and supporting brief, and any opposition thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, as follows: 1. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), which is a removal statute to which the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction applies, the United States properly removed this tort action from the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. Because that court lacked subject- matter jurisdiction over plaintiff Matthews’ claims against the United States, those claims are dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Such dismissal is: (a) with prejudice to Matthews’ right to assert claims against the United States in this civil action; but (b) without prejudice to his right, if any, to bring such claims against the United States in a timely, separate, original action in this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b).1 1 According to the United States, the deadline under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) for any such new Complaint was February 17, 2017, which was six months after the Postal Service denied Matthews’ administrative claim. Case 2:17-cv-00483-WB Document 2 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 13 2 2. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), Matthews’ remaining State-law claims against non- diverse defendant Chorno are remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County, because at the time of the at-issue motor vehicle accident, and contrary to Matthews’ allegations, Chorno was not a United States Postal Service employee and was not operating a United States Postal Service vehicle. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. BY THE COURT: HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE Judge, United States District Court Case 2:17-cv-00483-WB Document 2 Filed 02/08/17 Page 2 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA _____________________________________ : THEODORE MATTHEWS, : : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION : v. : NO. 17-cv-483 : GABREIL J. CHORNO and : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : Defendants. : : DEFENDANT UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), and for the reasons more fully explained in the accompanying brief, defendant United States of America respectfully moves, in this recently removed action: (1) to dismiss plaintiff’s claims against the United States with prejudice; and (2) to remand the remaining claims against non-federal defendant Gabriel Chorno to State court. Respectfully submitted, LOUIS D. LAPPEN Acting United States Attorney /s/ Margaret L. Hutchinson MARGARET L. HUTCHINSON Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division /s/ Gerald B. Sullivan GBS3408 GERALD B. SULLIVAN Assistant United States Attorney 615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250 Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 861-8786 (215) 861-8618 (fax) Attorneys for United States of America Case 2:17-cv-00483-WB Document 2 Filed 02/08/17 Page 3 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA _____________________________________ : THEODORE MATTHEWS, : : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION : v. : NO. 17-cv-483 : GABREIL J. CHORNO and : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : Defendants. : : BRIEF SUPPORTING DEFENDANT UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION In bringing this tort action - which defendant United States recently removed from the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County - plaintiff Theodore Matthews misapprehends not only the relevant limits of federal and State court jurisdiction but also the underlying facts. On the facts, he mistakenly describes his at-issue November 3, 2015 motor vehicle accident as involving only two vehicles - the minivan that he was driving and a United States Postal Service (“Postal Service”) vehicle, which he alleges defendant Gabriel Chorno was driving while in the scope of Postal Service employment. See Complaint, Dkt. Entry No. 1, Exhibit “A” thereto, at ¶¶ 5-8.1 But Chorno is not and was not a Postal Service employee, and the accident in fact involved three vehicles: (1) Matthews’ minivan; (2) Chorno’s SUV (which is not a Postal Service vehicle); and (3) a separate Postal Service vehicle that Postal Service employee Jacqueline Osowski (who is not a defendant in this action) was driving while delivering mail within the scope of her Postal Service employment. See Declaration of Postal Service Counsel Nathan T. Solomon, attached as Exhibit “A” hereto, ¶¶ 9-13 & Exhibit “4” 1 Matthews spells Chorno’s first name as “Gabreil.” This is apparently a misspelling. Case 2:17-cv-00483-WB Document 2 Filed 02/08/17 Page 4 of 13 2 thereto. The accident occurred when Chorno’s non-government SUV rear-ended the Postal Service vehicle and pushed it into Matthews’ minivan. At the time of impact, both the Postal Service vehicle and Matthews’ minivan were stopped at a red traffic light. See Id. The doctrine of derivative jurisdiction - which applies to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), the federal officer removal statute on which the United States grounded removal of this action - bars Matthews from proceeding against the United States in this action, including by way of amended pleading. Under that doctrine, a federal district court lacks jurisdiction: (1) where the removed- from State court lacked jurisdiction; and (2) regardless of whether district court jurisdiction would have existed had the action been originally filed in district court. Significantly, on tort claims such as Matthews’ against the United States, the Federal Tort Claims Act authorizes jurisdiction solely in federal district courts. Because the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County lacked jurisdiction over Matthews’ claims against the United States, and this Court derived no jurisdiction over them upon removal, those claims must be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Dismissal should be: (1) with prejudice to Matthews’ right to assert claims against the United States in this civil action; but (2) without prejudice to his ability to bring them in a new federal action, if such an action can still be timely filed.2 Matthews’ remaining State-law claims against non-federal, non-diverse defendant Chorno should be remanded to State court. 2 As discussed below, any such new action must be filed by no later than February 17, 2017. Case 2:17-cv-00483-WB Document 2 Filed 02/08/17 Page 5 of 13 3 I. BACKGROUND3 A. Procedural history On December 27, 2016, Matthews filed his Complaint against defendants Chorno and the United States in the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County, where the action was docketed at No. 161202877 (December Term, 2016). On January 10, 2017, Matthews served the Complaint by mail on counsel for the Postal Service. See Dkt. Entry No. 1 (Notice of Removal), Exhibit “B” thereto. He never separately served the United States Attorney’s Office or the Attorney General of the United States. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i) (stating requirements for service on United States). The United States has not yet responded to the Complaint. On February 2, 2017, the United States removed the action to this Court. In its removal notice, the United States averred that 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) (the “federal officer removal statute”) authorized removal because the statute provides that any such civil action commenced in State court against the United States may be removed by the United States to the United States District Court for the district in which the action is pending. Notice of Removal, Dkt. Entry No. 1, ¶ 6. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(c), the United States has until at least February 9, 2017 to respond to the Complaint. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(2) (“A defendant who did 3 In reviewing (as here) a Rule 12(b)(1) factual challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction, which contests not the sufficiency of the pleadings but whether in fact subject-matter jurisdiction exists as alleged: (1) no presumptive truthfulness attaches to the allegations of the plaintiff, who bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists; and (2) the court is free to weigh the record evidence. See, e.g., Constitution Party of Pa. v. Aichele, 757 F.3d 347, 358 (3d Cir. 2014) (noting that “[a] factual attack requires a factual dispute”); Harris v. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., 724 F.3d 458, 464 (3d Cir. 2013); accord Tomlin v. Pease, No. 14-cv-202, 2014 WL 1340624, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 4, 2014). Case 2:17-cv-00483-WB Document 2 Filed 02/08/17 Page 6 of 13 4 not answer before removal must answer or present other defenses or objections under these rules within the longest of these periods: . . . (C) 7 days after the notice of removal is filed”). B. Matthews’ administrative claim In connection with his November 3, 2015 accident, Matthews filed an administrative tort claim with the Postal Service on January 22, 2016. See Exhibit “A” hereto ¶¶ 5-6 (Declaration of Postal Service attorney Nathan T. Solomon), and Exhibit “1” thereto. On August 17, 2016, the Postal Service denied the claim on grounds that “an investigation of this matter failed to establish a negligent act or omission on the part of the U.S. Postal Service or its employees.” See Exhibit “A,” ¶ 7 and Exhibit “3” thereto. In its denial letter, the Postal Service advised Matthews that, under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) and 39 C.F.R. § 912.9(a), he had six months from August 17, 2016: (1) to file suit against the United States in federal district court under the Federal Tort Claims Act; or (2) to make a written request to the Postal Service for reconsideration. See Exhibit “A,” ¶ 7 and Exhibit “3” thereto (stating in part: “The Postal Service is not legally obligated to pay all losses which may occur, but only those caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee acting in the scope of his/her employment. . . . [N]ote [that] the United States of America is the only proper defendant in a civil action brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act and such suit may be heard only by a federal district court”) (bold added).4 4 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), “[a] tort claim against the United States shall be forever barred . . . unless action [in federal district court] is begun within six months after the date of mailing . . . of notice of final denial of the claim by the agency to which it was presented.” Accord 28 C.F.R. § 14.9(b) (providing that, if within the six-month period the claimant requests agency reconsideration, the period to file district court suit is six months from the date of mailing of a final denial of reconsideration). Case 2:17-cv-00483-WB Document 2 Filed 02/08/17 Page 7 of 13 5 Matthews’ counsel received the denial letter. See Exhibit “A,” ¶ 8 and Exhibit 3” thereto. Because Matthews did not request reconsideration, his deadline for filing a Federal Tort Claims Act suit against the United States in this Court is no later than February 17, 2017. This brief (which is being served today on Matthews’ counsel by email and First-class mail) provides Matthews with further notice of that deadline. II. ARGUMENT: THE MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD BE GRANTED The federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), is a “pure jurisdiction statute” that “grant[s] district court[s] jurisdiction over cases in which a federal officer [or the United States or a federal agency] is a defendant.” Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121, 136 (1989) (interpolation added); Jessup v. Continental Motors, Inc., No. 12-cv-4439, 2013 WL 309895, at *3 n.2 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 24, 2013) (emphasizing that this “jurisdiction” language of the Mesa Court: (1) concerns solely the “scope of removal,” i.e., the statutory authority that Section 1442 grants “to federal defendants to remove” actions; and (2) did not address the “scope of jurisdiction,” i.e. the Court did not suggest that Section 1442 independently authorizes “federal courts to hear [the merits of a properly] removed case”). The “special right of removal [that Section 1442(a)(1) confers] on federal officers [and the United States and federal agencies] may be exercised even if the plaintiff could not have brought the action initially in a federal court[.]” See Wright, Miller, Cooper, & Steinman, 14C Federal Practice and Procedure § 3726, at 266 & n. 84 (2009) (citing cases) (interpolations added); see generally Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633, 644 n.12 (2006) (noting: “Section 1442(a) is an exception to the ‘well-pleaded complaint’ rule, under which . . . ‘a Case 2:17-cv-00483-WB Document 2 Filed 02/08/17 Page 8 of 13 6 defendant may not remove a case to federal court unless the plaintiff’s complaint establishes that the case ‘arises under’ federal law”). Although the United States properly removed this action under Section 1442(a)(1), and regardless of whether this Court would have jurisdiction had the action originally been brought here, the claims against the United States must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Dismissal is required under the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction that applies to Section 1442(a)(1) because the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County lacked jurisdiction over those claims.5 Accord Selvaggio v. Horner, 42 F. Supp. 3d 732, 734 5 See Wright, Miller, Cooper, & Steinman, 14C Federal Practice and Procedure § 3726, at 270-274 & nn. 89-91 (2009) (stating that the doctrine of derivative-jurisdiction “persists in cases removed under Section 1442 . . . even though . . . Congress expressly rejected it in Section 1441 . . . . Consequently, a federal court cannot exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over a case removed under Section 1442 if no subject-matter jurisdiction existed at the state level”); 16 Moore’s Federal Practice § 107.100[7] & nn. 84-85 (3d ed. 2016) (stating that, because of derivative jurisdiction doctrine that applies to actions removed under Section 1442, “the federal court must dismiss claims over which the state court lacked jurisdiction”); Calhoun v. Murray, 507 Fed. Appx. 251, 256 (3d Cir. Dec. 20, 2012) (stating that doctrine of derivative jurisdiction applies to cases removed under Section 1442, and is a “procedural bar to the exercise of federal judicial power” that creates a “defect in removal” rather than being “an essential ingredient to federal subject matter jurisdiction”); Thompson v. Wheeler,, 898 F.2d 406, 409 n.2 (3d Cir. 1990) (citing cases removed by third-party federal officers and agencies under Section 1442(a) to Eighth and Tenth Circuits and noting in dicta that “upon reaching the federal forum [those cases] were subject to dismissal because [28 U.S.C.] section 1346(b) confers exclusive jurisdiction on the federal courts to hear cases within the [FTCA] so that the state courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the third-party complaints and, therefore, the district courts could acquire none upon removal”); Telchin v. Perel, No. 14-cv-1848, 2014 WL 2451378, at *3 (D.N.J. June 2, 2014) (noting that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1), federal district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over cross-claims for contribution and indemnity arising out of FTCA action, and cross-claim removed under Section 1442(a)(1) thus had to be dismissed for lack of derivative jurisdiction); Jessup v. Continental Motors, Inc., No. 12-cv-4439, 2013 WL 309895, at *1-3 & nn. 1-2 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 24, 2013) (in tort suit, stating that “because the state court lacked jurisdiction over the third-party claims against the [U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, which had been removed under Section 1442(a)(1)], the doctrine of derivative removal jurisdiction requires that we dismiss the third-party claims against the Service for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,” notwithstanding the number of substantial federal issues raised and Case 2:17-cv-00483-WB Document 2 Filed 02/08/17 Page 9 of 13 7 (E.D. Pa. 2014) (“If the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the federal court lacks jurisdiction [following a Section 1442(a)(1) removal] even if the federal court would have had jurisdiction had the action been initiated in this forum”); see generally Conklin v. Kane, 634 Fed. Appx. 69, 73 (3d Cir. Dec. 8, 2015) (recognizing that the derivative jurisdiction “doctrine still applies to proceedings removed under § 1442”). The Court of Common Pleas lacked jurisdiction because: (a) any claim against the United States in this action arises under federal law, specifically under the limited waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity that is embodied in the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680; (b) the FTCA is the exclusive remedy for any tort action properly and timely alleging the negligence or wrongful act or omission of any United States employee acting within the scope of employment, 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1); and (c) the United States district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over proper and timely claims under the FTCA. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b); colorable federal defenses); Turturro v. Agusta Aerospace Corp., No. 10-cv-2894, 2010 WL 3239199, at *2-3 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 13, 2010) (where State court had no jurisdiction over FTCA claims against United States, federal district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction -- notwithstanding proper Section 1442 removal -- and dismissed the FTCA claims); see also, e.g., Bullock v. Napolitano, 666 F.3d 281, 286 (4th Cir. 2012) (dismissing removed action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction where State court lacked jurisdiction, because the United States and its Secretary of Defense had not consented to be sued in State court under Title VII, and stating that fact that federal court would have had subject-matter jurisdiction had plaintiff filed the suit there did not suffice to permit the federal court to adjudicate the controversy); see generally Armor Elevator Co., Inc. v. Phoenix Urban Corp., 493 F. Supp. 876, 881-890 (D. Mass. 1980) (reasoning in part that: (1) court had jurisdiction to determine its derivative jurisdiction under Section 1442(a)(1); (2) State court lacked jurisdiction over claims against HUD, because of sovereign immunity, regardless of whether jurisdiction would have existed in federal court had claims originally been brought there; and (3) for Tucker Act claims against HUD, Court of Claims had exclusive jurisdiction, and because State court lacked jurisdiction the claims would be transferred to Court of Claims). Case 2:17-cv-00483-WB Document 2 Filed 02/08/17 Page 10 of 13 8 see also United States Postal Serv. v. Flamingo Indus. (USA) Ltd., 540 U.S. 736, 741 (2004) (Postal Service enjoys federal sovereign immunity absent a waiver). Dismissal of the claims against the United States should accordingly be: (1) with prejudice to Matthews’ ability to assert them in this action; but (2) without prejudice to his ability, if any, to assert them in a proper and timely manner in a newly filed action in this Court. Further, the remaining State-law claims of plaintiff Matthews against non-federal, non-diverse defendant Chorno should be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County.6 Accord Selvaggio, 42 F. Supp. 3d at 734-35 (in tort case removed under Section 1442(a)(1), and in which no federal employee had been sued, Judge Bartle: (1) dismissing claims against United States for lack of derivative jurisdiction, “since the state court had no power to adjudicate a claim against the United States for negligence at a Post Office”; (2) noting: “Nonetheless, this lack of jurisdiction does not prevent the plaintiff . . . from initiating a separate action against the United States in this court under the FTCA once all the prerequisites of such a lawsuit have been met”); (3) stressing that any such separate FTCA action must be “timely” filed; and (4) remanding to State court claims between non-federal, non-diverse parties). 6 Accord, e.g., Jessup v. Continental Motors, Inc., No. 12-cv-4439, 2013 WL 309895, at *3-4 & nn. 4-8 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 24, 2013) (“Because we lack subject matter jurisdiction over the . . . third-party claims against the [U.S. Forest] Service it follows that the only properly identified basis for removal no longer exists. We therefore lack subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims, and the Plaintiff’s request that we remand the remainder of this action to state court is appropriate”); see also State of Nebraska ex rel. Dept. of Soc. Servs. v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 1998) (after proper removal of action, “[o]nce the court determines that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims against the IRS, it properly dismissed those claims before remanding the remainder of the case to state court”); see generally 16 Moore’s Federal Practice § 107.100[7] (3d ed. 2016) (“the federal court must dismiss claims over which the state court lacked jurisdiction and remand claims against other defendants”). . Case 2:17-cv-00483-WB Document 2 Filed 02/08/17 Page 11 of 13 9 III. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant United States of America respectfully requests the Court, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), to dismiss the claims against the United States: (1) with prejudice to Matthews’ ability to bring them against the United States in this action; but (2) without prejudice to his ability, if any, to bring timely claims against the United States in a new federal action. The United States submits that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the remaining non-dismissed claims against non-federal, non-diverse defendant Chorno should be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County. Respectfully submitted, LOUIS D. LAPPEN Acting United States Attorney /s/ Margaret L. Hutchinson MARGARET L. HUTCHINSON Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division /s/ Gerald B. Sullivan GBS3408 GERALD B. SULLIVAN Assistant United States Attorney 615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 861-8786 Fax: (215) 861-8618 Gerald.Sullivan@usdoj.gov Attorneys for United States of America Dated: February 8, 2017 Case 2:17-cv-00483-WB Document 2 Filed 02/08/17 Page 12 of 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 8th day of February, 2017, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing United States’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction, with supporting brief, by First-class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Marc I. Simon, Esquire Simon & Simon, PC 1515 Market Street Suite 1600 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Gabriel J. Chorno 1508 E. Market Street York, PA 17403 Gabriel J. Chorno 8340 Walker Street Philadelphia, PA 19136 These documents have been filed electronically and are available for viewing and downloading from the Court’s Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) System. Also on this date, February 8, 2017, I called attorney Simon’s office and explained that I wished to provide Mr. Simon with email service today of these documents, because of plaintiff’s February 17, 2017 deadline under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). The receptionist at Mr. Simon’s office directed me to use the email address info@gosimon.com and to state in the body of the email that it is directed to Mr. Simon. I have today accordingly served Mr. Simon at that email address, in addition to the regular mail service described above. /s/ Gerald B. Sullivan GBS3408 Gerald B. Sullivan Assistant United States Attorney Case 2:17-cv-00483-WB Document 2 Filed 02/08/17 Page 13 of 13 TINTTED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYI,VANIA TTIEODORE MATT}IEWS, Plaintitr, GABRIEL J. CHORNO AND THE I]NITED STATES OF AMERICA Defendants. DECLARATION OF NATHAN T. SOLOMON I, Nathan T. Solomon, hereby make the following declaration under penalty of perjury pusuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1746 and submit this Declaration in support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. l. I make this Declaration on personal knowledge aud if called upon to do so, I could and wouid competently testifr to the following matten. 2. I am farniliar with the allegations set forth i.u the above-captioned action. 3. I work for the United States Postal Service ('USPS") as aD attomey at its National Tort Center (.NTC) in Philadelphia, pgnnsylvaoia I have been lictnsed to practice law in the state of Pennsylvania since 2013, and have been employed by the USPS since August 2013. Duties ofNTC personnel include, among other things, adjudication of personal ir:jury and other tort claims that arc filed agaiGt the Postal Service pursuaDt to tbe Federal Tort Claims Act ("F-[CA). As part of my duties, I have access to records of Administative Claim Files and litigation files related to Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") claim5 6gaia51 the Postal Service, includiog the files related to this case. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) GOVERNIIENT EXHIBlTn Case 2:17-cv-00483-WB Document 2-1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 13 4. In my capacity as a NTC attomey, I am personally responsible for the oversight of the adjudication of the adminisrative claim allegedly filed by Theodore Matthews (@ereinafter refened to as "Plaintiff') with the Postal Service. The exhibits belov/ are pad of that file. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of a Standard Form 95, dated February 17,2015. The standard practice in the NTC and the local districts is to date- stamp all mail on lhe day it is received. Exhibit I is date-stamped Jamary 22,2016. Therefore, upon information and beliel the Postal Service received Plaintiffs administrative claim on Jatuary 22,2016. 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy ofa letter, dated January 22, 2076, &om the Postal Sewice to PlaintifPs counsel. The lefter states that PlaintiPs administrative claim was received on lsrluaty 22,2016 and that USPS had six months from lanuary 22,2016 to adjudicate the claim. 7. Auached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and coEect copy ofa letter, dated August 17, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "Denial Letter'), from the Posta.l Service to Plaintiffs counsel. The Denial Letter states that Plaintiffs adm.inisrative claim was denied because "an investigation of this matter failed to establish a negligent act or omission on the part of the U.S. Postal Service or its employees." It also states, any suit filed in regards to this denial must be filed no later than six (O months from the date ofthe mailing ofthis letter, which is the date shown above. Further, note the United States of America is the only proper defendant in a civil action brought pu$uant to the Federal Tort Claims Act and such suit may be heard only by a federal district court. Ex.3. 8. A PS Form 3811 is included with Exhibit 3 and indicates PlaintifPs counsel received the Denial [,etter. Case 2:17-cv-00483-WB Document 2-1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 2 of 13 9. Anached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of a PS Form 1769, Accident Report, daled November 6, 2015. Excerpts from Exhibit 4 containing bformation protected by the Privacy Act and other sensitive information have been re&cted. 10. The PS Form 1769 indicates that thee vehicles were involved in an accident on November 4, 2015. According to the report, a vehicle operated by Defendant Gabriel J. Chomo rear-ended a USPS-owned vehicle operdted by Jacquetine Osowski and pushed the USPS vehicle into a vehicle occupied by Plaintilf. 11. The PS Form 1769 includes information indicating that Jacqueline Osowski was employed by the Postal Service and assigned to Huntington Park Station in Philade.lphi4 PA on November 4,2014. The report fi.rther hdicates that Ms. Osowski was delivcring mail at the time of the events described il the preceding paragraph and was therefore in the course and scope ofher federal employment. 12. Based upon my review of the adminishative claim file, and based upon information and belief, Defendant Gabriel J. Chomo was not operating a vehicle owned by the Postal Sewice on November 4 2015. See Complaint at { 6 (alleging Defendant Gabriel J Chomo was operating a vehicle owned by the Postal Service on November 4,2015). 13. Based upon my review of the administrative claim file, and based upon information and belief, Defendant Gabriel J. Chomo was not an employee of the Postal Service on November 4,2014. See Complaint at !f 7 (alleging Defendant Gabriel J. Chomo was employee of the Postal Service on November 4, 2014.). Case 2:17-cv-00483-WB Document 2-1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 3 of 13 Executed this 2nd day ofFebruary,20l7. By: Nathan Solomon Attomey National Tort CeDter United States Postal Service Case 2:17-cv-00483-WB Document 2-1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 4 of 13 oa staluarD fof,{ a! (REv. 2207) PESCTEO EY qry', C I.6IIOE ta ct8 !a , CI.AI FOR DATIAGE, INJURY, OR OEATH INSTRIJCTIOIIS: Flsr rod c.nAri th. E Ldsr qr lh. lttrl..E.rrr 3/Fa,ls.rn 16 ltq.-bd m !.ar.lon d t{. lir! Uat a&tronJ rrtat(r) I nacararr, 6o r!!'t! tall ftt .ddlord Ur!tr&o.. r. alllr bAFE f-ri llrt t: UniEd strr! Pool s.wkG To.t Cldrnr Coordinltor 3190 .. 70li Sr Rodtr 201 Pt ld.bhi+ PA 19153 a x.n 6-d..rli -n cEEir FrEa,!.-talr. !.., t6-h-rE5-6 ) r*6ar.![!.Lqr.E.dz,ara Thcodorr Mlttbcv/s Sitloo lrd Sitnon, Pc 1515 Mrrt t gt Suilo l50O PhiLid.lp[i!, PA l9l02 ! TYFE Of EIfI-OYT'EXI f) nmrv (lwr,ur a oarEaa,o v e ctDlrrl lllo}t 0t5 l2:30 pm ra itccul{arabrtsarlHEtrrcrE bD.ddrt -Er l+ti .,a-r llarre Fc. ra liq.t i.E.i. tb cE Erl --rl[d. u-rfrl.Fttlra-tt ChiErat wla tbppcd rf OlD.:y Avc. &d Mtsch.t St whctr r USPS vdliclc rc.Ilodld cl'irD'll vehiclc' lEo toiilii I xlraE AlrO AIbFgEl Of ol ICF, t O'IGR lllAri CLAIIAXI (t.rE, Sr{ Ctr, Sld, tr 2,, Cd.l lt L-.-- lS ftt y gElcE DC FmFEil.r r rE xo txrg{r (F nrE arraoa ^r{''n+ r.ocrlbr c E€€ nc rffiFrhiF*h.ElE :--(8-hri&r6rErtt) r0 Chidunt eiffcrEi injudc. io hi! brk I}IE'IAIIE tl, rlTitr9t -ii?6@9e-1ytce^, , ^oaess ftlJlll!4BL#m;;i- lZ ($. hrndaE.it -). Aaotill Of Ct l. [rr d{.n) IL PFOPERW dAI^6E 310,000 ta- P€Eprat ,qrw S 150,000 bur tDlY ch.n8c duc to Fditry 6cdic.l cs&. 1&. Wio.6F(,l DE{H 124- roT[ iFrlr b .r..rt r!, - s t &i$fr BJl.'nffianec au" to pending m.dic.l cosl I CEiBFY TII^T rX! lldtlT e Ct lI CO/Eia Of|lY OArAmi lrD arJrfiB CAuteO EY Tr.E arclDlr{t pyr IllD AOiE! TIO ACCEPT ttlrD arEtxl rx Ft tL aanaflc-rbt AltD FNA! lETtt*tat of r{! qlll. r !b FHoTJE r{-uB€i of P€Faan 96r{No FoRL r. oar€ oF gqi nfl tn$2016 cwr-{e.rvroedffi Ii^I.DULE,.I CI.AI Ih. d.5u b b b rrr Ltt{ sra.. @d rtl b. . d{ Frdt ol mr Lr. tn- t!,o@rl d,rE,r,!to.@,,ot!h-!'.ltEinlol(bit-rd.i'- b' [r ood-a (s- r! u,8-c ,2l} c'riur PETTITY FOi Pf,EtEr,Tt€ Ft^LrlLi.5l{I ctll oi IAXIF FAltE AIATEEXT! fl,.. bF6cDEr. q ldll (E- !a u,sc 2ar. 16 | ' = GOVERNIIENT! F * 2 E -t Arbrts d fu L.oi R.Frtrfia Pr6rq,l Erf,ar I lEl i.L!a 9$r0e SX 7taO.00{ttt{oat fEFr^r.fi.irf,r'fEGFr t^V---=-73-7TRTF tr^E YIC lgIlIE ^r{o qTEiII C !,lCll I.IIY Oi CIUEE G Oa tl( rl}Eh aoir.3 nC lli8{t r oF r}G ta.t.n60 FEFrg{ oi otcEDE{r Nrl,E FM' APPf,OVED oua o,110t[@ Case 2:17-cv-00483-WB Document 2-1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 5 of 13 o o ItlI rcc ool,/ER^ot honLr,..&.!iab.cLrEn,!.4ffd.Ib.-rll,tdr-rFua.LE*fhbrjetqf,itthrrm6cl. C r,t r.llcbq Fqrrt ra, Oo rq qn, ddrr tr&ffi? Y- lF, ai. d. ri rE- or l:,tE -iF.t (ra'ra-. irl Crr, !-. d b Cdat -tB/&,, (it !a, |i'.rB-d.calrldr Frllurt.-tihLr-8, rrrr-, at rra fi!.ra.t..ta, EYr Bib L,,d-'.EL., t arE l !l l..b ha D-r 5a Jti F, cn!. *a -hr ia Fr lrrr lL r FE{ b Lt rrn r-rrE b F(r GDr? (t i rE, trt Fr Err g- Lal It Ootw t F&!.Et ltl,lrady dq ln,tr? Y- rF.aL ctrii.rltE otrwrE di 0t!rar, ar-, cx, Ai...i 4cdl TlJrEErcI' Cbhrtt prE.nbd und.r lh. Fr,.'rl f-t Chh! Act.hodd ha n*.rtlrd dndt b Or. '.pp.op.tr t..r.6l .g.asf drc- tnelqraa(a, Il. hvoH h tlia hiJdaot It lht lnaida { larclyl rE.. tlian oax clhtnq -dr cLlltant alrcara, aslr& a aa?.natcfrh iorlll. CorT5. .n hrD. - lrEl 6. ior, IiOXE rlr't QDOE al. AClA $lli.l8€ OEEiTEO IOll vE aE€r,, PREE|IEO S/ICN A llDlMl OAr g€S lrl Ag.5lESIIIIfoi INJLRY TO OB IqES Or PioPEFTY. PER8Orl l AGEI{CY REC€i1JES FFOX Act^l|l^rll' tl! OLrY ATI}loaGO II,lt. OR tEO{, Itr.RY, d oEATHALEOED TO rqYt O@Uif,EO !Y E!^Fx oF I}I n€OExL aEpf,asErrarruE, ara cxaclrnao 9rAloAFo rod tI ff otlGi IIETTEH r{ qrfl ruar 4ltEllnt Eo ro T}E APPFoPftATE aED€i4- &xcY wDax raoTuE^rni oa a\ DrqtENr. rccta? ra€D !Y A qrl For rrcifY rm YllE ^FIE TllE cl,ArltAccluEs F.Ilo l! .drLtly .Ern. ira br- .i 5 !-at !. .qJrI E ra r5i/r ic r-a 16 n!. d.r. t'..t.r Errrt q dL. F, llh lr.a.l 4.5 I .L.o..l rlrr.a ri.ri I b lr..lna t tb FE h l-E . -r rhi i b n Grnd. raqJ! t-!.l!E!roFLd irtE -E ( a{ rr rdd or 0r difl rr F-t har, , idn. rlr dln-r lEn .rltn .Fllr rFd t ll &d{ dEL.blte all r-r. ia d C .r. i.iry, trn-r.d,didlt-r.qirct!.otFr-I(8 .'lit,rtrEr-, r, Rr e.rn d l!+.6.&q d h+d-o, arai{ ai'tn lt E.EdE h.tl.l, c hrr.l q-. -u-t lnorr.ad-!r.-5 ',,rht..tsTstcblE^d o t tudbII a. Cd. dtu-iRtr|Ir.,Pn (. rlr, Trd. r-. FErd xrdi-{t rtrrEr r.ttt ari or.Fq ltlid*r l-. i.r. -l! +q o h rFd ccrl E c.rT. ro rrvr.rr, rlird i-End rl t ErrrHt *!4 llr.r-l.n!.r.r a Br rE lmh.d.rtd, dr.rb r -!n-.!t *al.t ffi ffirr c,I!.t d t- lr{ rd. b -rt a dlna n rur dad! 9ltnd Dr dr. rq L tld Er. dt1.E!td t rg.ar. lrgi.}a-rri,i Fu/td .rEb.dr&(r b i. Oo(--l rr.rEll.d var a. d&t.a&tre 43 idEfy to ..1 k rrr clEr A d.h F-rd !, .n ui 0, Leri '9t rit . ira !. PiUrd h r. l3lr ol rt ffi. lur &rN dfrd !'lt.a-r c. hgJ rryra{E, r dl .lr.i i'l L. d lta cldr d !. FEl +.at d b @Ftr, t isrE d rlltr raEt b F*r. crn o !.ar.l d n d.br 6 E .1 .e-ar, drSEtt . Pr.d. Fd.. d d- r?-..4.i'- (C h r+a.n ., dalr ii .hrg. b tFF(t ilidr b id dErirr, 'tr.ranr r r h Eeatt ia br c &!*!,d,lr d.hrt.,Eid r.ff tarlrrnb - b rr orb r crdol !r Eqn ,lr lnacFrtrl-. idtL d.oIor,.tt rv, !.ri i.b. ia dr. [.6d,r s<.h iE-r. rrBI b. !r 6i*..dF r FE!.qfrr.qrd (*tq fi bil *r tlr rrT. C EEr, d.tr!.( sD, rF d d. diaalr. dd..r, ..c .rE! !. drlL .t Lalg r.n id crrE, rl calrrt rLril 6 la br lon prcra qr'y fr{ Eq-t, d.rura, l,r Dild t, rEn mt b. .lE h Ln Mrlr t2 oa lll ftrr ad tul,l to.D.elt. h c.rr.b tlll r.rt F6cbh ll'{ d nryd h brt&,l drr diE. PfvacY Acr loncE Ilir uco b F,Ed b ErrE sr t ttlyq ld. , u.3e E2i.Ill rn (ErEdE tu ttn*o,q!5 ll rr Lar 6rii.a !a lH..l d-l:l A rdt$r llrrq€a., ffiI da.drut- bqr !,rE ola. roi-{ll( tu,3c, Jor ita t ic ror-q-2tusc.rrttrrL,crR A Ah&rA.!o..r rn lrlatru! iqrdd i b h. ud h rarrh cllr' C. ,H. Ur.j lL.r.Nfudqrr[dFEnrErri.E brrErFJ r. ,rbrrSe ft bn ar aa h&rdi o E''dcFrrnbeaIdt o8dqr. r. rdJirE . ll-ir. tan ro e4y'r rlt r.qrnd hEir.br d b EL rr bi nr,' EtF, cti'hr3-' PrP Oal iaE Er ^cr totE! In rdo a ELift. ar Du!-. dor PFEi berL{ {4 U8C.llEl hruc,F.Olg lrrt! lalib dE r d rtrt! b.ffi b ttile. a iqrt FiFl-, hdrlr !r tti E E*i h6l!lrr, -.!ilt rd-l ob .d.a. !.n iD d .-!*i|t n d.a. rr.lcr. 3a cria5lt rn ltiirt tlr GE-frr ch6.naql S.d...rrErb,?rlhg [t lr|rh.abt bs rt drr -!aI C tL oEh C hd*! Ed|9.I-. rr rddrg L Urtl( 5tr old. Tqtrhdr rt lor PFrsr i.ddri&LcMoilor us. oFirrd.r&.lEtts1lE 2oalcdbirobolr-{-n rta t4a. D.d itI oi*a.a irr(.|5r-dE- = E *, B GOVERNIIENT EXHIB]T A:J41e STAE RD FORI ltFcv @aEnBACr, Case 2:17-cv-00483-WB Document 2-1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 6 of 13 o ofo,tC,.rrr,, ffigaarorr. Prrlbd./PhhDbnct lanuau'y 22,2016 Simon & Simon 1515 Market StrEGt, Suitc l@0 Philadelr6n tO tr|@ Rcf: Injury Accidcnt USPS C€sc# : 19l-15-00648 Date of Inci&nt : Wedaesday, Novernfu 4,2015 Your Clicnt's Nam: Thcodorc Malhcar! Rcceip ofCorrespondence: January 22, 2015 Dear Mr. Simon: This is o acknowledge receipt ofyour corl€spondencc fol a"mrgcs agaiost tbe Unitcd St8tcs Postal Scrvicc in thc mount of $150,000.00. Your corrcspondencc will bc given careful consideration by thc Unitcd Stares Postal Servicc, aad you wi[ be adviscd regarding the oucomc of the mattcr, but bc awrro ttat drc Posul Scrvice has six months from January22,20t5 in which to rdjudicde lhi, cbim. Should you have any idditimil inforrution you wish to subrmit thrr would bc holpful in our rwicw of this m8ncr, kiDdly forward samc to my afcntion at thc bclow addss. Accordingly, plcasc provi& me with yow client's medical records and ite,mized bills for te&ent received in connection with the above-refercaced incident as wcll as support for Eny cl"imcd propcrty dsmagc md/or uragc loss. (Sec thc back side of thc SF 95 cleim form.) Aay iuquiries pertaining to this claim should be directed to myself, with rcfaence made !o the aforemeotion€d USPS Case File numbcr and maild to thc bclow lisad address. ] GOVERNMENT EXHIBlT A -a- g, 5 a ,a6 Jdde 3l9O S. ,f Stla R@ 2Ol nilddDh4 PA l9lJ3 2l rr6153tt 6fl.30ft2a3 FAX Case 2:17-cv-00483-WB Document 2-1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 7 of 13 ) ILAW OEPARTMENT NATIONAL TORT CENTER UNITEO SrirESE POSTAL SEf,V'CE CERnFIED NO. 701'(,4900001 4158.1885 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED August 17, 2018 Mr. Marc L Simon Attomey at Larv '15'15 Martet Sheet, Suite 1600 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Re: Your Client: Date of lncident: Theodore Matlhews Novomber 4, 2015 Dear Mr. Simon: ft E t GOVERNMENT EXHIBlT A-s t m lr^rlGr STnEEr. Roos 2a0O Sr. Lours. [rO 8al5$.ee1E TELEHrorG'3la3t$5620 FAc$rr.E: 31a-3,1S893 Thb is in reference to the adminbhatiw claim you filed on behalf of the above referenced chiment under $e provbbns of the Federal Tort Claims Act, ae a resull of injuries all€g€dly Bustained on or about November 1,2015. The Postal Service b not legalv obligatod to pay all losses whlch may occur, but only th6e caus€d by the negligent or vwongful act or omission of an employee ac'ting in the scope of his/her employrnent. We are guided in our determination by all the information available to us, including lhe roports of our personnel and any oth€r porsons acquainted with the facts. As to th6 inciJent at issue, an investigation of this matter failed to establbh a neglipnt act or omisgion on the part of the U.S. Postal Servics or its €mployees. While vw regret any injury that may have occuned, we cannot accopt legal liability for these alleged damages. Accordingly, this daim is denied. ln accordance with 28 U.S.C. S 2401(b) and 39 C.F.R. 912.S(a), if dissathfied wilh th€ Postal Seryioe's final denial of an administrative claim, a claimant may file suit ln a United Statss Distrkt Court no later than six (0) months afler the date the Poslal SeMco ,nairs th€ notlce of that final adion. Accordingly, any suit filsd in regalds to thie denial mugt be filed no later than six (6) months from the date ot the maillng of this letter, which is the date shown above. Further, note the United Statc of America is the only proper defendant in a civil action broughl pursuant to the Fed€ral Tort Claims Ac-t and such suil may be heard only by a federal district court. Alternalively, and in accordanco rvith the ragulationE s€t out at 39 C.F.R. 912.9(b), prior lo the @mmoncament of suit and prlor to th€ explration of the six (6) month period provided in 28 U.S.C. S 2401(b), a claimant, his duly authorlzed agent, or legal representative, may file a written r€quost for reconsidoralion with the poEtal Case 2:17-cv-00483-WB Document 2-1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 8 of 13 qt -2- official who isued tho inal denhl of th€ claim. Upon the timety filing of a request for recoftrideration, the Poetal Servico shall have eix (6) month8 from the date o, tiling in rvhlch lo make a disposition of the claim and the cbimanta option under 28 U.S.C. S 2875(a) shall not accrue until six (8) monthe after the filing of the rcquest for reoonsk eration. A r€qusst for reconsUeration of a final denial of a claim ghall be deemed to have been filed when recslved in thb office. Sincerely, Chrystal C. Mueller Tort Claims Examiner/Adjud icator 3 t41345-5861 cc: Jason Jordan Tort Claim Coordinator File No. 191-1640048 a4 .o -.oI -!ln t oo trt Et o- I m t rlo F lffiF.aato Mr- Marc Simon Aflom€y at Lafl 151 5 Market St Suito 1600 t CdrpH. nrrE 1,2, .rd 3, I r AE dr O|b ct.d b Uro brck ot O|o mrrd@, P tr Agrr tr Addra PA'19102 or on lha fonl lf pdrn r. A SgrjrB x ryp. G Oalr of Odv.y t? Mr. Marc Simon AUorney at Law 1515 Market St. Suib 1600 PhiladdPhia, PA 191@. c. o o o o tr o ad gr.drr'Adfr Dort oEHnsbE otrl tr ib 9590 9402 13@ 5285 @1 1 59 Daq 2- ,{lld. Nunbr ltatq h@ -*, 6 D{rrrEEd Oaiy ?01q 3'130 0u01 q}sb qh85 OFFICIAL USE D, ) t:-l tt 1: (i i Pg Fqm 381 1. Jry 2oi5 Psrr raro@mss .D.n* tIrr tha&r U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIU' RECEIPT Oomcshc tlail Only ilrt, I ilil ililt lililr ilililililfl a IH'S SECTIONSEIJUER, COMpr Era. ll,S SECZO,\, Ott DLLtvEtty Case 2:17-cv-00483-WB Document 2-1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 9 of 13 Ps Form 1769r30;rlccloe.--nt eport USPS Rotdctod lnfo]mrton Not : Sh.d.d Rofi R.pr...nt OSHA 301 Fl.ld3 (wh.r. .ppuc.DL). Whoro dld ol lllnBs @cur: Brlof D ot Accldo : Whon dld accl or llln.ar occur: t > EtLm 2 CtraLr: > Phtddy't Cltrf.b CoaC. r': > arc67o. IAMOER. PHt+iUtf 'lO P it( 3TA (PA) OIHA llo.ll Lo.dqr: tiur{Tt{o P Rx Loarion rtaf. r*r.r( lnlry, or lh6t oacnia: PHIrAD€I.PIIA, PA 1a170 A.dd.n IyD.l lrblqv.l'U. Oyp. C€d. .IvI)E LLV rlr .d- by v.t! 2 (rdli! t.Lv b colld. vr$ v.i.! 9 On.sll hr..alg.tdr Conddd? 1o ga.loul AaalrLnt: ll t2 2D! 6 ll Orh AEcld,rt Cttdl(l ln EliS: 11,!a/11015 hy Cri..k ": ,:.:'' - r. ' r-'! {ff:-.. :il- -., - ..,...-*,,.---.',':..'116IB= .-r r7 PotadH hEr&sa o? uraal. colrdtroi: > *tlo hEadolJl alhallaa 1! Pstrfr tEnh! aQhr.nt d ruld* > 5+Io dftait (. h!.dol.. qipm.nl or rrl.|ql, Pot nthl Hazlrdour Cmditlon ot lnvolvod PS Fom 178a PoBon wlth rn "Actlvo Rol!" I I F Drlv.r Podc.trlsn: I lnvotYtd P. on RoL: lD hrrr, / Fatrlry.nab o0 addrt / Oha RoL Ccd- E DR!r' Enlor..lD: ?2 Entaoyaa C,oot , sl.t rc!P: Fd ltn , C&y Crrh.r 2l Prb rolo? v.N.h L.lrhd.: 2a Prlor lrduind Acdd.itr: o P., t ..dor: OEFAULT AlD t.irl6 Yn a lrr5. lr.r Cd.d h L|.dF 3! Ortttha 8!at6: !a Lrnaja Parlcia FaCarlr): > No unt.a. Ftcld hC., t n..'. PrElca(al: > No un.db r.rdo. t ffi@ r I I I i s B E GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT n.4 0.i.8ubini.c ttrtl/2016 P.e. t d5 tU1Y2Oi6 5i5C Al, I i,t 16 llo t5 25 1l OrL Pfttt lr Case 2:17-cv-00483-WB Document 2-1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 10 of 13 PS Form 17691301 Acc t Roport USPS Re.Hcted lnforrl.tlon lnvolY€d Pal!on P.llon wlth an "Acllvc Rob" + Psd6t hn PS Form t?aa t lvolna P.tr.n R6a: No r,lry , Fdly .{. or ...rdrt / C!!ii RoL Codr t DRV, PEO 52 Ulrd. P,ldt. F.do{.}: > OUar ulf pdromd Lcb. 53 t .,. Pr.cUc.(.l: > Folhf,,llC loo aloily> OoiurubE&. j f a E GOVERNMENT .EXHIBTT P-q f:r* oata s{,to t-: 11/6a2olt P{.2 ol3 trl1920t5 l:5e A|il Case 2:17-cv-00483-WB Document 2-1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 11 of 13 PS Form 1769r:10l lccltffitn-port USPS Rctulctod lnfomeuon- lnvolYod P. on wllh rn sAcdvc Rolc" ) Ddv6r Accld.nt Condltlom: lt > xcll,alatProga.ty Olrl.io> hd PrDDany o.lnla a2 h.t at lurfica frr.: ta &rdxa Ccn4!oi: Ory / Old nd .ontL.i. 85 C.lJx, Clrculr.lrlr.: STRUCK &Y VEHC|'I It ItIn Cri.hr lrprrrth-.: S hslr.d P.r.dr Roa: tlo rUrr lrflrd 6 -.ld.nt, Oni Rd. Cd... ORV tha.ta ?a[oaa 7&lo(r]: > rlo fiafa pftq|l l.dC > No l'rr. r.tr ,,1.,::1 ,,... , .' , ,,r:,..1'-- ,t:..i ,siilf$.jl' W rI ,.ijr.;"._5iiij. r, , J GOVERNMENT fl''/ rl s EXHIBIT PS tom 1769(301 ECrlvLno..USPS FESTRISIEO IIFORf,IATX)ll-' (h& srtrll[.c l1l :m15 tLb Fthl.di a fo 7'l R.ar{l IoLl , o, Y.licLr lEvoaia ln srdrrl: P.e. I d 3 tlrrcI2016 lr53 AL Case 2:17-cv-00483-WB Document 2-1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 12 of 13 > Non+o.Ll: CUSTOUER at la c1 SEtn.h-d t2 ot 9a nh. VdihL Eqrlpr.d ltth tLl g.b? 96 lllr. L.l B.il' ln 1 ..? L DaWa ucanaa Erplr on Dala: I > Non-Poctrl: CUSTO ER Crvyia- rorn &'d Cqrt, et V.Hd.lodr: 2011 t0c sEccr Jtdd Rotov.r: No !02 i6 rvr. Y.Dlcr. lqdPg.d tll$ &r a.n ? Uiar. !.n Bdta ln lraa? Drlvaft Llcaaaa llrlrr0olr g.aal > Poctrl: wml A vlD !0t 10t rr2T GRu,Xr/${ LLV e2 RH V.l.LL Bodr: tm $* d1.- !11 No 112 113 W.. Y.ttd. Eq!tsp.rr llilh S.ra A6? rir.r. S..r Bdt ln U..? E Cor.. Elacl.rt troln V.hlcLl ttlYa/a uc.lln f:rDl,ltcr DrL: Accld!nl lnform.tlon Sup.Nbor Retain this compbled torm for 5 caleMar y6ars ftorn Oate of Accldent osHA 301 Afrartlon: This ,orm contiains lnformatbn roteung to €mployao h€alth and must bc Usrd in a mannar that prolec8 tho confd$tblity of employees to th€ ext€nt po$lre wtflc the inbmatbn 6 being us€d for ocqrgatloflal saf€ty and hedth DUTDOSeB. osHA 301 PS F..m l76a USPS R€strlcted lnformatlon PS Fo]m 1769 t0 I Acc ldGnt Report 117 Jo! S.r.t, Arjrrl.: Itl 1i9 Cqrrl.Ld br: f l-iah O olrdbr JR Tro.: eDvcuaToE ScnucES 2 g s * E DlbSutrntlart 11/0!/ipr5 Dah Pdntd P.!.4 d 5 lt/ter2!16 5 6e AIt 90 2003 7f e9 101 1U r05 2205f05 V.hlcL X.L.Uod.I !0t e2 1t0 i1a ttt 11C TO PREVE{TAIVE ACTION REOUNEO rot20 Case 2:17-cv-00483-WB Document 2-1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 13 of 13