Geico General Insurance Company v. United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE 	CIVIL ACTION
COMPANY
VERSUS 	NO.: 26-1880
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
on behalf of KENNETH RICHARD 	SECTION: T(3)
MURPHY
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 5) filed by the United States of America
(“United States”) asserting this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Geico General
Insurance Company’s (“Geico”) claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act because Geico failed to
first exhaust its administrative remedies. Geico has not filed a response in opposition to the Motion,
and the time for doing so has elapsed. Accordingly, the Motion is deemed to be unopposed. For
the reasons set forth below, the Court will GRANT the Motion and dismiss Geico’s claims without
prejudice.
BACKGROUND
On July 29, 2026, Geico filed a subrogation action in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish against Kenneth Richard Murphy (“Murphy”) to recover amounts Geico alleges it paid on
behalf of its insured, Lisa Maichin (“Maichin”), arising out of the January 25, 2025, motor vehicle
accident between Maichin and Murphy (the “incident”). R. Doc. 1, p. 1. On August 26, 2026, the
United States timely filed a Notice of Removal in this Court asserting that at the time of the
incident, Murphy was an employee of the United States acting within the scope of his employment
and asserting that the United States is the proper defendant in this matter. R. Doc. 1 pp. 2–3; see
Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) (waiving sovereign immunity for
Case 2:26-cv-01880-GGG-EJD Document 6 Filed 10/16/26 Page 1 of 5

2
certain torts committed by employees of the United States); Atorie Air. Inc. v. FAA , 942 F.2d 954,
957 (5th Cir. 1991) (“All suits brought under the FTCA must be brought against the United
States.”).
According to the United States, Murphy was an employee of the Internal Revenue Service
(“IRS”) and was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the incident. See R. Doc.
1, p. 2. On August 26, 2026, the United States filed a Certification confirming Murphy was
employed by the IRS and acting within the scope of that employment at the time of the incident.
R. Doc. 1-2. Upon certification of employment, the United States “shall be substituted as the party
defendant.” 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2); 28 C.F.R. § 15.4. Thus, Geico’s claims are only properly
asserted against the United States under the FTCA.
In its Motion, the United States asks this Court to dismiss Geico’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under the FTCA. R. Doc. 5. The United States argues that Geico failed to
exhaust its administrative remedies as required by the FTCA before instituting this lawsuit. R. Doc.
5-1, p. 4. The United States argues that under the FTCA, a plaintiff must present his or her claim
to the responsible federal agency before filing a lawsuit. R. Doc. 5-1, p. 4. In support, the United
States filed the Declaration of Donte’ J. Coleman, Claims Manager for the IRS. R. Doc. 5-3.
According to the Declaration, the IRS has no record of a claim filed by Maichin or Geico on
Maichin’s behalf pertaining to the incident. R. Doc. 5-3. The United States argues that because
Geico failed to comply with the statutory procedure, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess power over only those cases
authorized by the United States Constitution and federal statutes. Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 248
(5th Cir. 1996). Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] case is
Case 2:26-cv-01880-GGG-EJD Document 6 Filed 10/16/26 Page 2 of 5

3
properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or
constitutional power to adjudicate the case.” Home Builders Ass’n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison,
143 	F.3d 	1006, 	1010 	(5th 	Cir. 	1998) (citation 	omitted). 	“The 	burden 	of 	proof 	for
a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is on the party asserting jurisdiction.” Ramming v. United States,
281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001). A court may find subject matter jurisdiction is lacking from “(1)
the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record;
or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court’s resolution of disputed
facts.” Id.
The applicable law for suits under the FTCA is well-settled. See Morales-Diaz v. United
States, No. 19-2552, 2019 WL 2469685 (E. D. La. June 13, 2019). “The FTCA creates a statutory
cause of action against the United States for torts committed by federal officials within the scope
of their employment.” Saunders v. Bush, 15 F.3d 64, 66 (5th Cir. 1994); Ali v. Fed. Bureau of
Prisons, 552 U.S. 214, 217–18 (2008) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1)) (“In the FTCA, Congress
waived the United States’ sovereign immunity for claims arising from torts committed by federal
employees.”). “Section 2679 of the FTCA provides that a suit against the United States is the
exclusive remedy for damages for injury or loss of property ‘resulting from the negligent or
wrongful conduct of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office
or employment.’” McLaurin v. United States, 392 F.3d 774, 777 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C.
§ 2679(b)(1)).
Before a lawsuit may be filed, however, the FTCA requires a plaintiff to first submit his or
her claim to the appropriate federal agency. Hinojosa v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 506 F. App’x 280,
282 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a)) (“Under the FTCA, no damages action may be
instituted against the United States ‘unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to the
Case 2:26-cv-01880-GGG-EJD Document 6 Filed 10/16/26 Page 3 of 5

4
appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by the agency in writing’
or been left undecided for six months.”). Thus, an action against the United States seeking money
damages for injury or loss caused by the negligence of an employee of the United States who was
acting within the scope of his or her employment at the time of the loss must first be presented to
the appropriate federal agency. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106,
113, (1993) (“The FTCA bars claimants from bringing suit in federal court until they have
exhausted their administrative remedies.”); Price v. United States, 69 F.3d 46, 54 (5th Cir. 1995),
on reh’g in part, 81 F.3d 520 (5th Cir. 1996) (finding subject matter jurisdiction “conditioned on
compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a), which declares that ‘an action shall not be instituted’ unless
the plaintiff has filed an administrative claim and either obtained a written denial or waited six
months”).
This “requirement is jurisdictional and cannot be waived.” Baker v. McHugh, 672 F. App’x
357, 362 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Emps. Welfare Comm. v. Daws, 599 F.2d 1375, 1378 (5th Cir.
1979)). “The Supreme Court has recognized that strict compliance with the administrative
exhaustion procedures outlined in the FTCA is required of a plaintiff who institutes an action
against the United States.” Mendoza v. United States, No. 4:20-cv-154-O, 2020 WL 6737871, at
*2 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2020) (citing McNeil, 508 U.S. at 112) (failing “to completely exhaust
administrative remedies prior to filing an FTCA claim is a jurisdictional defect”).
The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing presentment of his or her claim to the
appropriate agency. Barber v. United States, 642 F. App’x 411, 413 (5th Cir. 2016). A plaintiff
“gives proper notice within the meaning of § 2675(a) only when the agency obtains sufficient
written information to begin investigating and the claimant places a value on his claim.” Cook v.
United States Dep’t of Labor, 978 F.2d 164, 165 (5th Cir. 1992).
Case 2:26-cv-01880-GGG-EJD Document 6 Filed 10/16/26 Page 4 of 5

5
The United States has submitted evidence including the Certification of Murphy’s
employment, R. Doc. 1-2, and the Declaration of the IRS Claims Manager, R. Doc., 5-3, declaring
the IRS had not received an administrative FTCA claim from Geico regarding the incident.
Because Geico did not present its claim to the IRS before filing this lawsuit, Geico failed to comply
with the strict requirements of the FTCA and this Court, therefore, lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Considering the law, the record, the evidence submitted by the United States, and Geico’s
failure to oppose the motion,
IT IS ORDERED that the United States’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction (R. Doc. 5) is GRANTED and Geico’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this ____ day of October 2026.
GREG GERARD GUIDRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16th
Case 2:26-cv-01880-GGG-EJD Document 6 Filed 10/16/26 Page 5 of 5