Kwai Fun Wong v. Beebe

13 Citing briefs

  1. Bhatnagar v. United States of America

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed November 18, 2016

    This is a “garden variety claim of excusable neglect,” like a “simple miscalculation that leads a lawyer to miss a filing deadline,” which “does not warrant equitable tolling.” Wong, 732 F.3d at 1051 (citation omitted). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, defendant United States of America’s asks the Court to grant summary judgment in favor of defendant.

  2. Craig Hanus v. United States of America et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed December 21, 2016

    Under the FTCA, the United States is liable “in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances ….” 28 U.S.C. § 2674; Wong v. Beebe, 732 F.3d 1030, 1048 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“[A]s a general matter, the FTCA places suits against the United States on equal footing with suits against private individuals.”), aff’d sub nom.

  3. Alonzo, et Al. v. United States, et Al.

    MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT

    Filed June 26, 2017

    The second requirement of circumstances beyond her control requires more than excusable neglect, such as an attorney’s miscalculation of dates, and requires her to show that the extraordinary circumstances “ma[de] it impossible to file [the document] on time.” Beebe, 732 F.3d at 1052 quoting Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993, 997 (9th Cir. 2009). It is well established that "once a claimant retains counsel, tolling ceases because she has gained the means of knowledge of her rights and can be charged with constructive knowledge of the law's requirements."

  4. Thompson v. United States of America

    Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction .

    Filed July 25, 2016

    CONCLUSION Because Plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies nor 1 Equitable tolling would not apply as to the first set of SF 95s, as there is nothing to indicate the Claimants were “diligently pursuing their rights” before the unsigned SF 95s were received by the VA or “that some extraordinary circumstances stood in their way” of submitting the claim forms within the statutory period. See Kwai Fun Wong, 732 F.3d at 1052. Case 3:16-cv-00654-YY Document 8 Filed 07/25/16 Page 14 of 15 Page 15 – UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO DISMISS Thompson v. United States; Case No. 3:16-cv-00654-YY complied with the statute of limitation, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction and therefore should dismiss this lawsuit. Respectfully submitted this 25th day of July, 2016.

  5. United States of America v. Sherman Mazur et al.,

    OPPOSITION in Opposition re: for Hearing 1 United States of America's Opposition to London Finance Group, Ltd.'s Motion for Release of Property Seized Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41

    Filed September 14, 2015

    To the contrary, it “acts as a condition on the . . . waiver[s] of sovereign immunity” found in other statutes. Kwai Fun Wong v. Beebe, 732 F.3d 1030, 1049 (9th Cir. 2013); accord, e.g., Nesovic, 71 F.3d at 778; Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v. United States, 895 F.2d 588, 592 (9th Cir. 1990). Because Congress afforded LFG a remedy through section 7426 of the Internal Revenue Code with a shorter statute of limitations and waivers of sovereign immunity must be construed in favor of the government (especially when Congress mandated a smaller statute of limitations and the burden of proof is not with the United States), this Court should not expand the government’s waiver of sovereign immunity to include this claim.

  6. Sallison v. United States of America

    MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Filed June 19, 2017

    This exhaustion requirement “is tied by explicit statutory language to jurisdiction,” and is therefore “‘jurisdictional.’” Kwai Fun Wong v. Beebe, 732 F.3d 1030, 1047 (9th Cir. 2013), cert. granted sub nom.

  7. Felix DE Jesus Parra et al v. Altamed Health Services Corporation et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case

    Filed May 12, 2017

    Because the exhaustion requirement of § 2675(a) is jurisdictional, it is not subject to waiver, estoppel, or equitable tolling. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (courts have “no authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements”); Kwai Fun Wong v. Beebe, 732 F.3d 1030, 1047 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“The exhaustion requirement, unlike the § 2401(b) limitations period, is tied by explicit statutory language to jurisdiction, and was deemed ‘jurisdictional’ in Brady.” (citations omitted)), aff’d and remanded sub.

  8. Redlin v. United States of America

    MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12

    Filed April 19, 2017

    A plaintiff who seeks equitable tolling bears the burden of showing “’(1) that he Case 4:16-cv-00531-RCC Document 13 Filed 04/19/17 Page 4 of 6 - 5 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstances stood in his way.’” Wong v. Beebe, 732 F.3d 1030, 1052 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC v. Simmonds, 566 U.S. 221 (2012)).

  9. Ozuna v. Garg et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and to Substitute

    Filed February 16, 2017

    1 The Supreme Court’s holding in United States v. Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (2015), that the statutes of limitations in § 2401 of the FTCA are not jurisdictional and therefore potentially subject to equitable tolling, does not apply here. As the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Wong noted, “the exhaustion requirement [of § 2675(a)], unlike the § 2401(b) limitations period, is tied by explicit statutory language to jurisdiction, and [is] deemed jurisdictional . . . .” Wong v. Beebe, 732 F.3d 1030, 1047 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Brady, 211 F.3d at 502). Thus, the Supreme Court’s decision in Wong, which does not discuss § 2675(a), does not impact the analysis regarding the jurisdictional nature of § 2675(a)’s exhaustion requirement.

  10. Reyes v. United States of America

    MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Filed December 7, 2016

    Section 2675(a)’s “exhaustion requirement, unlike the § 2401(b) limitations period, is tied by explicit statutory language to jurisdiction, and was deemed “jurisdictional” in Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 2000).” Kwai Fun Wong v. Beebe, 732 F.3d 1030, 1047 (9th Cir. 2013) aff'd and remanded sub nom. United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (2015).