Sconiers v. United States Postal Service

MOTION for Summary Judgment

D.N.J.June 13, 2017

WILLIAM E. FITZPATRICK Acting United States Attorney KRUTI D. DHARIA Assistant U.S. Attorney 970 Broad Street, Suite 700 Newark, N.J. 07102 Tel.: 973-645-2891 email: kruti.dharia@usdoj.gov UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY STACI SCONIERS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; STEPHAN D. JOHNSON; PROGRESSIVE GARDEN STATE INSURANCE COMPANY; ALPHA INSURANCE COMPANY; and DELTA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. Hon. William J. Martini Civil Action No. 2:17-01835 (WJM)(MF) NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that on July 17, 2017 at 10:00 AM, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, WILLIAM E. FITZPATRICK, Acting United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey (KRUTI DHARIA, Assistant U.S. Attorney, appearing) as attorney for the United States Postal Service and Stephan D. Johnson (collectively “the Federal Defendants”),will apply to this Court for an Order of Dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. In support of this motion, the Federal Defendants respectfully refer the Court to the accompanying memorandum of law and papers in support, and request that this motion be decided on the papers submitted, without oral argument, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12 Filed 06/13/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 31 2 Dated: Newark, New Jersey June 13, 2017 Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM E. FITZPATRICK Acting United States Attorney By: s/ Kruti Dharia KRUTI D. DHARIA Assistant United States Attorney Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12 Filed 06/13/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 32 WILLIAM E. FITZPATRICK Acting United States Attorney KRUTI D. DHARIA Assistant U.S. Attorney 970 Broad Street, Suite 700 Newark, N.J. 07102 Tel.: 973-645-2891 email: kruti.dharia@usdoj.gov UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY STACI SCONIERS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; STEPHAN D. JOHNSON; PROGRESSIVE GARDEN STATE INSURANCE COMPANY; ALPHA INSURANCE COMPANY; and DELTA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. Hon. William J. Martini Civil Action No. 2:17-01835 (WJM)(MF) FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE Defendants, the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) and Stephan D. Johnson (collectively “the Federal Defendants”), by their attorney, William E. Fitzpatrick, Acting United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, submit this Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute in support of the Federal Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) and Local Civil Rule 56.1. Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-1 Filed 06/13/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 33 2 1. Plaintiff brings her action against the Federal Defendants under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). See Compl.. Exh. 1. 2. On behalf of Plaintiff, an administrative tort claim dated January 19, 2016, was filed with the USPS on January 22, 2016. See Declaration of M. Kevin Coffey, dated June 12, 2017 (“Coffey Decl.”), ¶ 3, Ex. A. 3. On July 14, 2016, the USPS mailed a final denial of Plaintiff’s claim, which was sent to the Plaintiff’s counsel via certified mail. See Coffey Decl. ¶¶ 5, 6, Exhs. C, D. 4. The final denial letter of Plaintiff’s administrative tort claim was delivered on July 19, 2016. See Coffey Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. D. 5. Plaintiff filed her action against the Federal Defendants on March 20, 2017. See Compl., ECF No. 1. Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM E. FITZPATRICK Acting United States Attorney By: s/ Kruti Dharia KRUTI D. DHARIA Assistant United States Attorney Dated: Newark, New Jersey June 13, 2017 Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-1 Filed 06/13/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 34 WILLIAM E. FITZPATRICK Acting United States Attorney KRUTI D. DHARIA Assistant United States Attorney 970 Broad Street, Suite 700 Newark, New Jersey 07102 Tel. (973) 645-2891 e-mail: kruti.dharia@usdoj.gov UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY STACI SCONIERS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; STEPHAN D. JOHNSON; PROGRESSIVE GARDEN STATE INSURANCE COMPANY; ALPHA INSURANCE COMPANY; and DELTA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. Hon. William J. Martini Civil Action No. 2:17-01835 (WJM) (MF) MOTION DATE: JULY 17, 2017 THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AS A DEFENDANT AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WILLIAM E. FITZPATRICK ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Attorney for Defendants Kruti D. Dharia Assistant United States Attorney Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-2 Filed 06/13/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID: 35 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preliminary Statement .................................................................................................. 1 Statement of Facts ......................................................................................................... 1 Standard of Review ........................................................................................................ 2 Argument ....................................................................................................................... 3 I. The United States of America Should Be Substituted for the Federal Defendants .......................................................................................................... 3 II. The Action Is Time-Barred Under the FTCA .................................................... 4 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 7 Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-2 Filed 06/13/17 Page 2 of 12 PageID: 36 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Ali v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214 (2009) .................................................................................................... 5 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) .................................................................................................... 2 Bailey v. U.S. Marshals Serv. Headquarters, 426 F. App’x 44 (3d Cir. 2011) ................................................................................... 3 Baker v. United States, No. 12-CV-494, 2013 WL 3745880 (D.N.J. July 15, 2013) ........................................ 5 Brumfield v. Sanders, 232 F.3d 376 (3d Cir. 2000) ........................................................................................ 4 CNA v. United States, 535 F.3d 132 (3d Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................ 4 Couden v. Duffy, 446 F.3d 483 (3d Cir. 2006) ........................................................................................ 3 Dolan v. United States Postal Serv., 546 U.S. 481 (2006) .................................................................................................... 3 FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) .................................................................................................... 4 Franchise Tax Bd. v. United States Postal Serv., 467 U.S. 512 (1984) .................................................................................................... 3 Hammond v. Kim, No. 13-CV-435, 2013 WL 4509988 (D.N.J. Aug. 26, 2013) ....................................... 6 Hutchinson v. Weisinger, No. 12-CV-5792, 2014 WL 3817335 (D.N.J. Aug. 4, 2014) ....................................... 4 J.S. ex rel. Snyder v. Blue Mountain Sch. Dist., 650 F.3d 915 (3d Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................ 2 Kaucher v. Cnty. of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418 (3d Cir. 2006) ........................................................................................ 2 Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-2 Filed 06/13/17 Page 3 of 12 PageID: 37 iii Martinez v. United States Postal Serv., No. 15-CV-8545, 2016 WL 6892074 (D.N.J. Nov. 22, 2016) ................................. 5, 6 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) .................................................................................................... 2 Meehan v. Taylor, No. 12-CV-4079, 2013 WL 4517943 (D.N.J. Aug. 26, 2013) ..................................... 5 Roma v. U.S., 344 F.3d 352 (3d Cir. 2003) ........................................................................................ 5 Santos v. U.S., 559 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 2009) ........................................................................................ 4 Seiss v. United States, 792 F. Supp. 2d 729 (D.N.J. 2011) ......................................................................... 5, 6 Stevens v. Zickefoose, No. 12-CV-3011, 2015 WL 5227446 (D.N.J. Sept. 8, 2015) ...................................... 4 Turner v. United States of America, No. 17-CV-0618, 2017 WL 1157858 (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2017) ..................................... 5 United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (2015) ................................................................................................ 4 United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (1980) .................................................................................................... 4 White-Squire v. U.S. Postal Serv., 592 F.3d 453 (3d Cir. 2010) .................................................................................... 4, 5 Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) .................................................................................................... 4 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) .................................................................................................... 5, 6 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) ........................................................................................................ 5 28 U.S.C. § 2679 ............................................................................................................. 4 28 U.S.C. § 2679(a) ........................................................................................................ 3 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1) ................................................................................................ 3, 4 Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-2 Filed 06/13/17 Page 4 of 12 PageID: 38 iv 28 U.S.C. § 2680 ............................................................................................................. 4 39 U.S.C. § 409(c) ........................................................................................................... 3 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ....................................................................................................... 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) .............................................................................................. 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B) .............................................................................................. 2 Regulations 28 C.F.R. § 15.4 .............................................................................................................. 3 Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-2 Filed 06/13/17 Page 5 of 12 PageID: 39 Preliminary Statement The Court should dismiss Plaintiff=s tort claims against the United States Postal Service (“USPS”), an agency of the federal government, and Stephan D. Johnson, a USPS employee (collectively, “the Federal Defendants”), under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 because the undisputed material facts demonstrate that this action is untimely under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). See Federal Defendants’ Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute. As an initial matter, the United States of America is the only proper defendant in a FTCA action. However, even if Plaintiff had named the United States as a defendant, the Court should grant summary judgment and dismiss the suit because the action was not filed during the time limits prescribed by the FTCA. Statement of Facts Plaintiff claims that on January 6, 2016, a truck owned by the USPS and operated by Mr. Johnson, collided with Plaintiff’s motor vehicle. Compl. ¶¶ 1-2. Plaintiff alleges that the Federal Defendants were negligent and because of their negligence, Plaintiff suffered severe personal injuries. Id. ¶¶ 3-4. Plaintiff also sues several private insurance companies for money damages. Id., Second Count. Plaintiff, through counsel, submitted an administrative tort claim form, known as a Standard Form 95 (“SF 95”), to the USPS seeking damages for her alleged injuries. See Declaration of M. Kevin Coffey, dated June 12, 2017 (“Coffey Decl.”), ¶ 3, Exh. A. Plaintiff’s SF-95 is dated January 19, 2016 and was received by USPS on January 22, 2016. See id. On July 14, 2016, the USPS mailed a final letter Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-2 Filed 06/13/17 Page 6 of 12 PageID: 40 2 to Plaintiff’s counsel denying Plaintiff’s SF-95. See id. ¶ 5, Exhs. C, D. The final denial letter was delivered to Plaintiff’s counsel on July 19, 2016. See id. ¶ 6, Exh D. Plaintiff filed her instant Complaint on March 20, 2017. See ECF No. 1. Standard of Review Summary judgment is appropriate whenever “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine dispute exists “only if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party, and a factual dispute is material only if it might affect the outcome of the suit under governing law.” Kaucher v. Cnty. of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418, 423 (3d Cir. 2006). In opposing summary judgment, the non-moving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). The non-moving party must “cit[e] to particular parts of materials in the record” to “show[] that the materials cited do not establish the absence . . . of a genuine dispute.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A), (B). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). In determining whether a genuine dispute of any material fact exists, the court must draw all facts and inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See J.S. ex rel. Snyder v. Blue Mountain Sch. Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 925 (3d Cir. 2011). Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-2 Filed 06/13/17 Page 7 of 12 PageID: 41 3 Argument I. The United States of America Should Be Substituted for the Federal Defendants Tort actions brought against the United States Postal Service are subject to, and governed by, the FTCA. See 39 U.S.C. § 409(c); Dolan v. United States Postal Serv., 546 U.S. 481, 484 (2006); Franchise Tax Bd. v. United States Postal Serv., 467 U.S. 512, 519 n.11 (1984). The only proper defendant in an FTCA action is the United States of America. See 28 U.S.C. § 2679(a); Couden v. Duffy, 446 F.3d 483, 498 n.10 (3d Cir. 2006); Bailey v. U.S. Marshals Serv. Headquarters, 426 F. App’x 44, 45-46 (3d Cir. 2011). In this case, Plaintiff attempts to assert a tort claim against USPS and Stephan D. Johnson, a USPS employee. However, 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1) provides that upon the certification of the Attorney General that a defendant was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the conduct for which the tort claim arises, the claim shall be “deemed an action against the United States under the provisions of this title and all references thereto, and the United States shall be substituted as the party defendant.” 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1). The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, under the authority delegated pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 15.4, has certified that at the time of the conduct alleged in the complaint, Stephan D. Johnson was acting within the scope of his employment as an employee of the United States. See Certification of Scope of Employment, dated June 13, 2017, attached as Exhibit A. Accordingly, all claims against Stephan D. Johnson should be dismissed and the United States of America should be Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-2 Filed 06/13/17 Page 8 of 12 PageID: 42 4 substituted as a party. See 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1); see also Brumfield v. Sanders, 232 F.3d 376, 379 (3d Cir. 2000); Stevens v. Zickefoose, No. 12-CV-3011, 2015 WL 5227446, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 8, 2015). Similarly, all claims against the USPS should be dismissed because the United States is the only proper defendant in an FTCA case, See, e.g., CNA v. United States, 535 F.3d 132, 138 n.2 (3d Cir. 2008); Hutchinson v. Weisinger, No. 12-CV-5792, 2014 WL 3817335, at *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 4, 2014) (dismissing USPS and USPS employee from the FTCA lawsuit). II. The Action Is Time-Barred Under the FTCA Even if Plaintiff had named the United States as a defendant, the Court should still dismiss her tort claims because the suit is untimely under the FTCA.1 The United States has sovereign immunity from civil liability, except where it has consented to suit. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994); United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980). The FTCA, which is the exclusive remedy for tort claims against the United States, grants a limited, qualified waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1); accord White-Squire v. U.S. Postal Serv., 592 F.3d 453, 456 (3d Cir. 2010); Santos v. U.S., 559 F.3d 189, 193 (3d Cir. 2009). However, a number of exceptions and conditions, including an administrative exhaustion requirement, limits this waiver. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1 In United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625, 1638 (2015), the Supreme Court held that the FTCA’s time bars are nonjurisdictional. Prior to Wong, federal courts typically decided timeliness in FTCA cases during a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-2 Filed 06/13/17 Page 9 of 12 PageID: 43 5 2679-80; Ali v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214, 218 (2009); White–Squire, 592 F.3d at 457. Under the FTCA, a plaintiff cannot sue the United States unless she files a claim with the appropriate agency and the agency denies the claim in writing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); Roma v. U.S., 344 F.3d 352, 362 (3d Cir. 2003). The FTCA further specifies that a tort claim against the United States “shall be forever barred unless it is presented in writing to the appropriate Federal agency within two years after such claim accrues or unless action is begun within six months after the date of mailing, by certified or registered mail, of notice of final denial of the claim by the agency to which it was presented.” 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b); accord Roma, 344 F.3d at 362. To bring a timely FTCA claim, a plaintiff has to (1) file a claim with the appropriate federal agency within two years of the accrual of the claim and (2) file a lawsuit within six months of when the claim was denied by the agency. See Turner v. United States of America, No. 17-CV-0618, 2017 WL 1157858, at *2 (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2017); Meehan v. Taylor, No. 12-CV-4079, 2013 WL 4517943, at *3 (D.N.J. Aug. 26, 2013); Baker v. United States, No. 12-CV-494, 2013 WL 3745880, at *5 (D.N.J. July 15, 2013); Seiss v. United States, 792 F. Supp. 2d 729, 732 (D.N.J. 2011). “The FTCA’s time-line requirements are typically strictly enforced by district courts.” Martinez v. United States Postal Serv., No. 15-CV-8545, 2016 WL 6892074, at *4 (D.N.J. Nov. 22, 2016) (post-Wong case where the court granted summary judgment and dismissed the case as time-barred under the FTCA ). Here, Plaintiff failed to commence this lawsuit within six months of the denial of her Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-2 Filed 06/13/17 Page 10 of 12 PageID: 44 6 administrative tort claim. Plaintiff filed an administrative tort claim with USPS on January 22, 2016. See Coffey Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A. On July 14, 2016, USPS mailed a final denial of the administrative claim, which was delivered to Plaintiff’s counsel on July 19, 2016. See Coffey Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, Exhs. C, D. USPS’s denial letter specifically noted that if Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the final denial of her claim, she could file a federal lawsuit suit no later than six months after the USPS mails the final denial letter. See Coffey Decl., Exh. C. Because the USPS mailed its denial on July 14, 2016, Plaintiff had until January 17, 2017, to file her lawsuit. However, she failed to do so. Instead, she waited until March 20, 2017 to sue, which is more than two months after the expiration of the six-month deadline. Thus, under a straightforward application of the filing deadlines contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), Plaintiff’s claims against the Federal Defendants are untimely. See, e.g., Martinez, 2016 WL 6892074, at *4-5 (granting summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to file her lawsuit within six months of the agency’s denial letter); Hammond v. Kim, No. 13-CV-435, 2013 WL 4509988, at *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 26, 2013) (dismissing FTCA case when the complaint was filed more than six months after the USPS sent the final denial letter); Seiss, 792 F. Supp. 2d at 732 (same). Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-2 Filed 06/13/17 Page 11 of 12 PageID: 45 7 Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the Court should substitute the United States as a defendant in this case for the Federal Defendants, grant the motion for summary judgment, and dismiss the Complaint in its entirety because the action is time-barred under the FTCA. Dated: Newark, New Jersey June 13, 2017 Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM E. FITZPATRICK Acting United States Attorney By: s/ Kruti Dharia KRUTI D. DHARIA Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for the Federal Defendants Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-2 Filed 06/13/17 Page 12 of 12 PageID: 46 Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-3 Filed 06/13/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID: 47 EXHIBIT A Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-3 Filed 06/13/17 Page 2 of 15 PageID: 48 Privacy Act Privacy Act Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-3 Filed 06/13/17 Page 3 of 15 PageID: 49 Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-3 Filed 06/13/17 Page 4 of 15 PageID: 50 EXHIBIT B Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-3 Filed 06/13/17 Page 5 of 15 PageID: 51 Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-3 Filed 06/13/17 Page 6 of 15 PageID: 52 EXHIBIT C Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-3 Filed 06/13/17 Page 7 of 15 PageID: 53 Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-3 Filed 06/13/17 Page 8 of 15 PageID: 54 Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-3 Filed 06/13/17 Page 9 of 15 PageID: 55 EXHIBIT D Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-3 Filed 06/13/17 Page 10 of 15 PageID: 56 USPS.com® - USPS Tracking® Results Page 1 of 4 USPS Tracking® Results FAQs > (http://faq.usps.com/?articleld=220900) Track Another Package + Tracking Number: 70133020000190960380 t t Updated Delivery Day: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 'CD Product & Tracking Information Postal Product: Priority Mail™ DATE & TIME July 19, 2016, 1:23pm Features: Certified MaiiTM Up to $50 insurance included Restrictions Apply (j) STATUS OF ITEM Delivered, To Agent A Remove X Delivered See Available Actions LOCATION NEWARK, NJ 07102 Your item has been delivered to an agent at 1 :23 pm on July 19, 2016 in NEWARK, NJ 07102. July 19, 2016, 8:12 am Out for Delivery NEWARK, NJ 07102 July 19, 2016, 8:02 am Sorting Complete NEWARK, NJ 07102 https ://tools. usps.com/ go/TrackConfirmAction ?tRef=fullpage&tLc=2&text28777=&tLabels... 5191201 7 Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-3 Filed 06/13/17 Page 11 of 15 PageID: 57 USPS.com® - USPS Tracking® Results DATE & TIME July 19, 2016, 7:56 am July 18, 2016, 9:40 pm July 16, 2016, 8:31 pm July 16, 2016, 9:39 am July 16, 2016, 4:51 am July 15, 2016, 8:45 pm July 14, 2016, 1 0:51 pm July 14, 2016, 9:58 pm July 14, 2016, 4:03 pm Available Actions STATUS OF ITEM Arrived at Unit In Transit to Destination Departed USPS Facility Arrived at USPS Destination Facility In Transit to Destination Departed USPS Facility Arrived at USPS Origin Facility Departed Post Office Acceptance See Less A Page 2 of 4 LOCATION NEWARK, NJ 07105 KEARNY, NJ 07099 KEARNY, NJ 07099 SAINT LOUIS, MO 63155 SAINT LOUIS, MO 63155 SAINT LOUIS, MO 63155 SAINT LOUIS, MO 63155 See Less A https ://tools. usps.com/ go/TrackConfirmAction ?tRef=fullpage&tLc=2&text28777=&tLabels... 5/9/201 7 Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-3 Filed 06/13/17 Page 12 of 15 PageID: 58 Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-3 Filed 06/13/17 Page 13 of 15 PageID: 59 Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-3 Filed 06/13/17 Page 14 of 15 PageID: 60 Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-3 Filed 06/13/17 Page 15 of 15 PageID: 61 WILLIAM E. FITZPATRICK Acting United States Attorney KRUTI D. DHARIA Assistant U.S. Attorney 970 Broad Street, Suite 700 Newark, N.J. 07102 Tel.: 973-645-2891 email: kruti.dharia@usdoj.gov UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY STACI SCONIERS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; STEPHAN D. JOHNSON; PROGRESSIVE GARDEN STATE INSURANCE COMPANY; ALPHA INSURANCE COMPANY; and DELTA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. Hon. William J. Martini Civil Action No. 2:17-01835 (WJM)(MF) CERTIFICATION OF SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2679 and 42 U.S.C. § 233(c), and by virtue of the authority delegated to me under 28 C.F.R. § 15.4, I certify that I have read the Complaint in the case of Staci Sconiers v. U.S. Postal Service, et al. Based on the information available to me with respect to the incidents alleged, I find that Stephan D. Johnson was acting within the scope of his employment as an employee of the U.S. Postal Service at the time of the conduct alleged in the complaint. Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-4 Filed 06/13/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 62 2 Dated: Newark, New Jersey June 13, 2017 Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM E. FITZPATRICK Acting United States Attorney By: s/ Caroline Sadlowski CAROLINE A. SADLOWSKI Chief, Civil Division Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-4 Filed 06/13/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 63 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY STACI SCONIERS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; STEPHAN D. JOHNSON; PROGRESSIVE GARDEN STATE INSURANCE COMPANY; ALPHA INSURANCE COMPANY; and DELTA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. Hon. William J. Martini Civil Action No. 2:17-01835 (WJM)(MF) [PROPOSED] ORDER THIS MATTER having come before the Court upon the motion of Defendants the United States Postal Service and Stephan D. Johnson (“the Federal Defendants”), for an Order of Summary Judgment, and the Court having considered the papers submitted in support of and in response to the motion, and for good cause shown; IT IS ORDERED on this _____ day of ________, 2017 that the Federal Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED and that Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed in its entirety as a matter of law. IT IS SO ORDERED: ____________________________________ HONORABLE WILLIAM J. MARTINI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-5 Filed 06/13/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 64 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kruti Dharia, Assistant United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, certify that on June 13, 2017, a copy of the Federal Defendants’ Motion to Substitute the United States of America as a Defendant and Motion for Summary Judgment, with all accompanying papers, was served upon Plaintiff’s counsel by CM/ECF. Dated: June 13, 2017 Newark, New Jersey s/ Kruti Dharia KRUTI DHARIA Assistant United States Attorney Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12-6 Filed 06/13/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 65