eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2016-02

Robyn Holloway v. United States ( 2016 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                             FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FEB 17 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBYN HOLLOWAY and STERLING                      No. 14-16079
HOLLOWAY,
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02120-MCE-
Plaintiffs,                        CKD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee,
v.
SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, Proposed Intervenor-
Plaintiff; et al.,
Movant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 12, 2016**
San Francisco, California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before: SILVERMAN and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges and LASNIK,*** District
Judge.
Security National Insurance Company appeals the district court’s denial of
its motion to intervene in a Federal Tort Claim Act action filed by Robyn and
Sterling Holloway. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     and review
de novo. Vacek v. U.S. Postal Serv.,
    447 F.3d 1248
    , 1250 (9th Cir. 2006);
Canatella v. California,
    404 F.3d 1106
    , 1112 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The district court properly denied for lack of subject matter jurisdiction the
insurance company’s request to intervene because no party filed an administrative
claim on behalf of the insurance company. See
    28 U.S.C. § 2675
    (a); McNeil v.
United States,
    508 U.S. 106
    , 113 (1993); Brady v. United States,
    211 F.3d 499
    , 502
(9th Cir. 2000). Because the filing of an administrative claim pursuant to
    28 U.S.C. § 2675
    (a) is jurisdictional, Security National’s arguments that it could
intervene under the various rules of civil procedure lack merit. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
82; Canatella,
    404 F.3d at 1113
    .
AFFIRMED.
***
The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
2