MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - … for Partial Summary Judgment. ... Florida attorney whose...
Transcript of MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - … for Partial Summary Judgment. ... Florida attorney whose...
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
RONALD COLBERT, andJERRI COLBERT,
Plaintiffs,
vs. Case No.: 3:09-cv-998-HES-JRK
The UNITED STATES OFAI”IERICA, KANDIS MARTINE,and PV HOLDING CORP.,d/b/a BUDGET RENT-A-CARSYSTEM, INC., a foreigncorporation,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
COMES NOW Defendant Kandis Martine, by and through her
undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56 moves the Court for the entry of Partial Summary
Judgment in her favor. As grounds in support of her Motion,
Defendant STATES:
1. There is no genuine issue of material fact and
Defendant is entitled to Judgment as a matter of law that she
is deemed to be an employee of the United States because she
was performing work under a 93-638 Contract with the United
States when the accident that is the subject of this dispute
occurred.
1
Case 3:09-cv-00998-HES-JRK Document 46 Filed 10/25/10 Page 1 of 21 PageID 557
2. There is no genuine issue of material fact and
Defendant is entitled to Judgment as a matter of law that she
was not acting in her individual capacity when the accident
that is the subject of this dispute occurred.
3. All Plaintiffs and Defendants, with the exception of
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA concur in this Motion.
4. Because of the nature of the relief requested, the
concurrence of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in this Motion was
not sought.
5. A Memorandum of Legal Authority in support of the
above requested relief follows below.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs sue for the injuries allegedly suffered by
them due to an accident that occurred on April 2, 2007 in
Jacksonville, Florida. Defendant Kandis Martine, was in the
area to observe a hearing on behalf of the Navajo Children and
Family Services Program (ICWA), a program administered
pursuant to a 638 Contract with the United States Department
of the Interior1. Ms. Martine mistakenly turned the wrong way
on a one-way street. A vehicle driven by James Murphy, was
1 The Indian self Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975(“Indian Self Determination Act”), which is codified at 25 u.s.c. §~45oato 450n, was enacted by Public Law No 93-638, and contracts between theunited States of America and Indian Tribes are known as “638 contracts”.
2
Case 3:09-cv-00998-HES-JRK Document 46 Filed 10/25/10 Page 2 of 21 PageID 558
able to stop and avoid the vehicle being driven by Ms.
Martine, but a third vehicle being driven by Plaintiff Ronald
Colbert was unable to stop in time and rear-ended the Murphy
vehicle. Ms. Martine is being sued both as an individual and
as an employee of the Navajo Nation that was working pursuant
to a 638 Contract with the United States of America.
On this date, Defendant Kandis Martine hereby files a
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. There are certain
material facts that are not in dispute and she is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law that she is deemed to be an
employee of the United States because she was performing work
under a 638 Contract when the accident that is the subject of
this dispute occurred, and that no claims remain against her
as an individual.
II. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE
For purposes of this Summary Judgment proceeding2
Defendants contend there are no genuine issues as to the
following material facts:
1. On March 09, 2006, the Navajo Nation entered into a
model contract with the United States Department of the
2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of civil Procedure 56, “[tlhe judgment soughtshould be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosurematerials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuineissue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled tojudgment as a matter of law.”
3
Case 3:09-cv-00998-HES-JRK Document 46 Filed 10/25/10 Page 3 of 21 PageID 559
Interior to administer the Navajo Children and Family Services
Program (ICWA) . See Exhibit A, Affidavit of Regina Yazzie at
¶3 and Exhibit 1 attached thereto (93-638 Contract with the
United States Department of the Interior)
2. This 93-638 Contract incorporates by reference the
annual funding agreement that was in effect in 2007 (the year
the accident giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred) . See
Exhibit A, Affidavit of Regina Yazzie at ¶4 and Exhibit 2
attached thereto (2007 Annual Funding Agreement)
3. Pursuant to the 2007 Annual Funding Agreement,
“[flor purposes of Federal Tort Claims Act coverage, the
Navajo Nation and its employees are deemed to be employees of
the Federal government while performing work under the
contract. This status is not changed by the source of the
funds used by the Navajo Nation to pay the employee’s salary
and benefits unless the employee receives additional
compensation for performing covered services from anyone other
than the Navajo Nation.” See Exhibit A, Affidavit of Regina
Yazzie at ¶s and Exhibit 2, p. 13, attached thereto (2007
Annual Funding Agreement)
4. Pursuant to Attachment A of 2007 Annual Funding
Agreement, “[t]he goal of the Navajo Children and Family
Services (NCPS) Program, Indian Child Welfare Act Unit, is to
4
Case 3:09-cv-00998-HES-JRK Document 46 Filed 10/25/10 Page 4 of 21 PageID 560
prevent the break up of Navajo families, to protect the best
interest of Navajo children and to promote the stability of
Navajo families.” See Exhibit A, Affidavit of Regina Yazzie at
¶s and last two pages of Exhibit 2 attached thereto (“Scope of
Work”, Attachment A to the 2007 Annual Funding Agreement).
5. On April 2, 2007, in furtherance of this goal, Lucy
Laughter Begay and Defendant Kandis Martine were in
Jacksonville, Florida, to observe the adoption hearing of
“Baby Boy Billy” on behalf of the Navajo Children and Family
Services Program (ICWA) . See Exhibit A, Affidavit of Regina
Yazzie at ¶~j7, 8 and 9; Exhibit B, Affidavit of Kandis Martine
at fl4, S and 6; Exhibit C, deposition of Kandis Shana
Martine, pp. 14-15, 63-66, and 75-80; and Exhibit 0,
deposition of Lucy Laughter Begay, pp. 15-16, 18-19, and 34-
36.
6. Specifically, and pursuant to the scope of work of
the Navajo Children and Family Services Program, Kandis
Martine was:
a. Attempting to look out for the best interest
of “Baby Boy Billy” and to promote the Navajo
family by attempting to have him placed with a
Navajo family. See Exhibit A, Affidavit of
Regina Yazzie at ¶9(a); Exhibit B, Affidavit
5
Case 3:09-cv-00998-HES-JRK Document 46 Filed 10/25/10 Page 5 of 21 PageID 561
of Kandis Martine at ¶6(a); Exhibit C,
deposition of Kandis Shana Martine, pp. 14-15,
63-66, and 75-SO; and Exhibit ID, deposition of
Lucy Laughter Begay, pp. 15-16, and 34-36.
b. Working at the direction of Navajo Children
and Families Services to whom the Florida
adoption case had been referred. See Exhibit
A, Affidavit of Regina Yazzie at ¶9 (b)
Exhibit B, Affidavit of Kandis Martine at
¶6(b); Exhibit C, deposition of Kandis Shana
Martine, pp. 75-SO; and Exhibit 0, deposition
of Lucy Laughter Begay, pp. 15-16, and 34-36.
c. Provide case management services to “Baby Boy
Billy”. See Exhibit A, Affidavit of Regina
Yazzie at ¶9(c); Exhibit B, Affidavit of
Kandis Martine at ¶s (c) ; Exhibit C, deposition
of Kandis Shana Martine, pp. 75-SO; and
Exhibit 0, deposition of Lucy Laughter Begay,
pp. 15-16, and 34-36.
d. Coordinating with Navajo Children and Families
Services on behalf of Navajo children and
families. See Exhibit A, Affidavit of Regina
Yazzie at ¶g (d) ; Exhibit ~, Affidavit of
S
Case 3:09-cv-00998-HES-JRK Document 46 Filed 10/25/10 Page 6 of 21 PageID 562
Kandis Martine at ¶6(d); Exhibit C, deposition
of Kandis Shana Martine, pp. 75-80; and
Exhibit 0, deposition of Lucy Laughter Begay,
pp. 15-16, and 34-36.
e. Providing education and training on the
provisions of ICWA to Jodi Seitlin. See
Exhibit A, Affidavit of Regina Yazzie at
¶9(e); Exhibit B, Affidavit of Kandis Martine
at ¶6 (e) ; Exhibit C, deposition of Kandis
Shana Martine, pp. 75-80; and Exhibit ID,
deposition of Lucy Laughter Begay, pp. 15-16,
and 34-36.
f. And monitoring the efforts of the State of
Florida to comply with the ICWA. See Exhibit
A, Affidavit of Regina Yazzie at ¶9(f);
Exhibit B, Affidavit of Kandis Martine at
¶6(f); Exhibit C, deposition of Kandis Shana
Martine, pp. 75-80; and Exhibit 0, deposition
of Lucy Laughter Begay, pp. 15-16, and 34-36.
7. In the performance of the above work, Ms. Martine
and Ms. Begay, had retained the services of Jodi Seitlin, a
Florida attorney whose office is in downtown Jacksonville, to
represent the Navajo Children and Family Services Program
7
Case 3:09-cv-00998-HES-JRK Document 46 Filed 10/25/10 Page 7 of 21 PageID 563
interests in the scheduled adoption hearing. See Exhibit B,
Affidavit of Icandis Martine at ¶7; and Exhibit C, deposition
of Kandis Shana Martine, p. 25.
8. On April 2, 2007, Ms. Martine and Ms. Begay were
scheduled to meet with their attorney prior to the start of
the adoption hearing, and afterwards they were to proceed to
the courthouse for the hearing. See Exhibit B, Affidavit of
Kandis Martine at ¶11; and Exhibit C, deposition of Kandis
Shana Martine, pp. 25-26.
9. Ms. Martine and Ms. Begay were on route to their
attorney’s office in downtown Jacksonville in a rental car,
which had been rented by Ms. Begay, but was being driven by
Ms. Martine, an authorized driver. See Exhibit B, Affidavit of
Kandis Martine at ¶~ja and 9; Exhibit C, deposition of Kandis
Shana Martine, pp. 15-16; and Exhibit 0, deposition of Lucy
Laughter Begay, p. 20.
10. Defendant Kandis Martine is an employee of the
“Contractor”, i.e. the Navajo Nation. See Exhibit B, Affidavit
of Kandis Martine at ¶3; and Exhibit C, deposition of Kandis
Shana Martine, pp. 13, 60.
11. Ms. Martine was drivinq at the request of Ms. Beqay
due to the fact that Ms. Begay was uncomfortable driving in
city traffic. See Exhibit B, Affidavit of Kandis Martine at
S
Case 3:09-cv-00998-HES-JRK Document 46 Filed 10/25/10 Page 8 of 21 PageID 564
¶9; and Exhibit D, deposition of Lucy Laughter Begay, pp. 31-
32.
12. At that time, Ms. Martine, while looking for
parking, accidentally turned the wrong way down a one way
street. See Exhibit B, Affidavit of Kandis Martine at ¶118 and
9; Exhibit C, deposition of Kandis Shana Martine, pp. 15-16;
26-27; and Exhibit D, deposition of Lucy Laughter Begay, p.
20.
III. ARGUNENT
A. THE NAVAJO NATION AND ANY EMPLOYEE OF THE NAVAJO NATIONWHO IS DOING WORK PURSUANT TO A 638 CONTRACT IS DEEMED TO BEAN EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PURPOSES OF SUIT, WILL BEDEFENDED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND WILL BE AFFORDED THEFULL PROTECTION AND COVERAGE OF THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT
It is Defendant Kandis Martine’s contention that
liability for Plaintiffs’ claims have, by operation of law,
been assumed by the United States under the Federal Tort
Claims Act and Plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy is against the
United States in Federal Court. This Motion for Summary
Judgment centers around the construction of a contract entered
into between the Navajo Nation and the United States
Department of the Interior. The construction of this contract
is a question of law and is suitable for summary judgment.
Cent. Nat. Bank v. Palmer, 806 F. Supp. 253, 256 (M.D. Fla.
S
Case 3:09-cv-00998-HES-JRK Document 46 Filed 10/25/10 Page 9 of 21 PageID 565
1992); Quayside Associates, Ltd. v. Harbour Club Villas
Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 419 So.2d 678 (3d DCA Fla.1982)
The Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance
Act of 1975 (“Indian Self Determination Act”), which is
codified at 25 U.S.C. §~45Oa to 450n, was enacted by Public
Law No 93-638. On March 09, 2006, the Navajo Nation entered
into a model Indian Self-Determination Act (93-638) contract
(hereinafter “638 Contract”) with the United States Department
of the Interior to administer the Navajo Children and Family
Services Program (ICWA) , and this contract incorporates by
reference the 2007 annual funding agreement, which was in
effect at the time of the accident that gave rise to the
Plaintiffs’ claims. See Exhibit A, Affidavit of Regina Yazzie
at ¶3 and Exhibit 1 attached thereto (93-638 Contract with the
United States Department of the Interior)
Public Law No 101-512, Title III, § 314 provides that the
638 Contractor (i.e., the Navajo Nation) and its employees are
afforded the full protection and coverage of the Federal Tort
Claims Act:
With respect to claims resulting from theperformance of functions during the fiscal year1991 and thereafter resulting from theperformance of functions . . . under a contract
• authorized by the Indian Self Determinationand Education Assistance Act of 1975 . . . anIndian tribe, tribal organization or Indian
10
Case 3:09-cv-00998-HES-JRK Document 46 Filed 10/25/10 Page 10 of 21 PageID 566
contractor is deemed hereafter to be a part ofthe Bureau of Indian Affairs in the Department ofthe Interior . while carrying out any suchcontract . . . and its employees are deemedemployees of the Bureau . . . while acting withinthe scope of their employment in carrying out thecontract . . . [Amy civil action or proceedinginvolving such claims brought hereafter againstany tribe, tribal organization, Indian contractoror tribal employee covered by this provisionshall be deemed to be an action against theUnited States and will be defended by theAttorney General and be afforded the fullprotection and coverage of the Federal TortClaims Act.
Congress’ purpose in extending FTCA coverage to Indian tribes
carrying out 638 Contract was (1) to allow the federal
government to maintain the same level of exposure associated
with the operation of federal Indian programs, such as health
care and law enforcement, that it had before the enactment of
the Indian Self-Determination Act and (2) to give the tribes
the protective benefit of the FTCA. See S. Rep. No. 100-274,
100th Cong. 2d Sess. (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.S.N.
2620, 2646—2647.
Further guidance on this issue is given by section 25
C.F.R. § 900.197:
§ 900.197 Does FTCA cover employees of thecontractor3 who are paid by the contractor from
3 Note that pursuant to 25 c.F.R. § 9Do.6, “contractor” means an Indiantribe to which a contract has been awarded. 25 c.F.R. § 900.6. In thepresent case, the “contractor” is the Navajo Nation. See Exhibit A,Affidavit of Regina Yazzie at ¶3 and Exhibit 1 attached thereto (93-638contract with the United States Department of the Interior)
11
Case 3:09-cv-00998-HES-JRK Document 46 Filed 10/25/10 Page 11 of 21 PageID 567
funds other than those provided through the self-determination contract?
Yes, as long as the services out of which theclaim arose were performed in carrying out theself-determination contract.
25 C.F.R. § 900.197 (emphasis added).
In the present case, both of the above laws and
regulations are emphasized in the 2007 Annual Funding
Agreement for the 638 Contract, which states that
For purposes of Federal Tort Claims Act coverage,the Navajo Nation and its employees are deemed tobe employees of the Federal government whileperforming work under the contract. This statusis not changed by the source of the funds used bythe Navajo Nation to pay the employee’s salaryand benefits unless the employee receivesadditional compensation for performing coveredservices from anyone other than the NavajoNation.
See Exhibit A, Affidavit of Regina Yazzie at ¶4 and Exhibit 2
attached thereto (2007 Annual Funding Agreement)
There is no dispute in this case that Kandis Martine is,
and was at the time of the accident, an employee of the
Contractor, the Navajo Nation. See Exhibit B, Affidavit of
Kandis Martine at ¶3; and Exhibit C, deposition of Kandis
Shana Martine, pp. 13, 60. The only questions that remains is
whether Defendant Kandis Martine was performing work pursuant
to the 638 Contract at the time of the accident that gave rise
to this suit.
12
Case 3:09-cv-00998-HES-JRK Document 46 Filed 10/25/10 Page 12 of 21 PageID 568
B. DEFENDANT KANDIS MARTINE WAS PERFORMING WORK UNDER THECONTRACT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT THAT GIVES RISE TOPLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM.
Attachment A to this Annual Funding Agreement is entitled
“Scope of Work”, and this attachment sets forth in specific
detail the goals and work to be undertaken by the Navajo
Nation under that particular 638 Contract. See Exhibit A,
Affidavit of Regina Yazzie at ¶6 and last two pages of Exhibit
2 attached thereto (“Scope of Work”, Attachment A to the 2007
Annual Funding Agreement) . In particular, the scope of work
states that “[t]he goal of the Navajo Children and Family
Services (NCPS) Program, Indian Child Welfare Act Unit, is to
prevent the break up of Navajo families, to protect the best
interest of Navajo children and to promote the stability of
Navajo families.” Id.
Ms. Martine, in her attached Affidavit, and her
Deposition on August 26, 2010, stated that she and Ms. Bagay
were specifically working to further this goal by “attempting
to look out for the best interest of [Baby Boy Billy] and
promote the Navajo family by having that child placed with a
Navajo family.” See Exhibit A, Affidavit of Regina Yazzie at
¶1J7, S and 9; Exhibit B, Affidavit of Kandis Martine at ¶~4, S
and 6; Exhibit C, deposition of Kandis Shana Martine, pp. 14-
13
Case 3:09-cv-00998-HES-JRK Document 46 Filed 10/25/10 Page 13 of 21 PageID 569
15, 63-66, and 75-80; and Exhibit D, deposition of Lucy
Laughter Begay, pp. 15-16, 18-19, and 34-36.
The Scope of Work further specifies the particular
activities to be undertaken by the Navajo Nation and its
employees in furtherance of the 638 Contract:
1. NCFS Program receives written/oral referralson Navajo children whose cases are pending instate court due to neglect, abuse, terminationof parental rights and/or adoption.
2. NCFS Program maintains a master file on allICWA referrals and cases.
3. Coordinate with the Navajo Nation Office ofVital Records of each referred child’seligibility of enrollment with the NavajoNation,
4. Provide case management services to eligibleNavajo children and families.
5. Request coordination of legal services fromthe Navajo Nation Department of Justice onbehalf of Navajo children and families, whenapplicable.
6. Identify and recruit potential adoptive andkinship homes for Navajo children.
7. Provide special needs assistance to Navajochildren and families depending onavailability of funds.
8. Monitor and facilitate existingIntergovernmental Agreements (IGA) withapplicable states.
9. Provide education and training on theprovisions of ICWA.
14
Case 3:09-cv-00998-HES-JRK Document 46 Filed 10/25/10 Page 14 of 21 PageID 570
10. Provide statistical reports in accordance tothe Government Performance and Results Act of1993 on a quarterly basis.
11. Monitor the efforts made by the State tocomply with the ICWA4, such as, placementpreference and whether active efforts arebeing provided.
4 Note that “IcwA” here refers to the Indian child Welfare Act andnot the 638 program. ICWA is a federal law that the Navajo Nation hastaken partial responsibility in enforcing. This law was passed in orderto protect Indian tribes and Indian children, and it is part statesthat:
Recognizing the special relationship between the UnitedStates and the Indian tribes and their members and theFederal responsibility to Indian people, the congressfinds—
***
(2) that congress, through statutes, treaties, and thegeneral course of dealing with Indian tribes, has assumedthe responsibility for the protection and preservation ofIndian tribes and their resources;
(3) that there is no resource that is more vital to thecontinued existence and integrity of Indian tribes thantheir children and that the United States has a directinterest, as trustee, in protecting Indian children whoare members of or are eligible for membership in anIndian tribe;
(4) that an alarmingly high percentage of Indian familiesare broken up by the removal, often unwarranted, of theirchildren from them by nontribal public and privateagencies and that an alarmingly high percentage of suchchildren are placed in non-Indian foster and adoptivehomes and institutions; and
(5) that the States, exercising their recognizedjurisdiction over Indian child custody proceedingsthrough administrative and judicial bodies, have often
uc Lecoynize Lue essenuidi Litbal aelaLioubIndian people and the cultural and social standardsprevailing in Indian communities and families.
25 U.S.c.A. § 1901 (emphasis added)
15
Case 3:09-cv-00998-HES-JRK Document 46 Filed 10/25/10 Page 15 of 21 PageID 571
See Exhibit A, Affidavit of Regina Yazzie at ¶s and last two
pages of Exhibit 2 attached thereto (“Scope of Work”,
Attachment A to the 2007 Annual Funding Agreement).
When asked about which of these sections related to the
work being undertaken by Ms. Martine at the time of the
accident, she replied that she was undertaking “one, four,
five, nine and eleven”. Exhibit C, deposition of Kandis
Martine, p. 77. Specifically, she testified:
[GOAL] Attempting to look out for the bestinterest of “Baby Boy Billy” and to promote theNavajo family by attempting to have him placedwith a Navajo family;
[1] Working at the direction of Navajo Childrenand Families Services (ICWA) to whom the Floridaadoption case had been referred;
[4] provide case management services to “Baby BoyBilly”;
[5] Coordinating with Navajo Children andFamilies Services on behalf of Navajo childrenand families;
[9] Providing education and training on theprovisions of ICWA to Jodi Seitlin; and
[11] Monitoring the efforts of the State ofFlorida to comply with the ICWA.
See Exhibit B, Affidavit of Kandis Martine at ¶6(a); Exhibit
C. d~nn~itHnn of Tcandis Shana Martine. rn. 14-15. 63-66. and
75-80; and Exhibit ID, deposition of Lucy Laughter Begay, pp.
16
Case 3:09-cv-00998-HES-JRK Document 46 Filed 10/25/10 Page 16 of 21 PageID 572
15-16, and 34-36. (bracketed numbers added for easy reference
back to the “Scope of Work”)
In the performance of this work, Ms. Martine and Ms.
Begay, had retained the services of Jodi Seitlin, a Florida
attorney whose office is in downtown Jacksonville. See Exhibit
B, Affidavit of Kandis Martine at ¶7; and Exhibit C,
deposition of Kandis Shana Martine, p. 25. They specifically
retained her to represent the Navajo Children and Family
Services Program interests in the “Baby Boy Billy” adoption
hearing. Id. On April 2, 2007, Ms. Martine and Ms. Begay were
set to meet with Ms. Seitlin prior to the start of the
adoption hearing, and afterwards they were to proceed to the
courthouse for the hearing. See Exhibit B, Affidavit of Kandis
Martine at ¶11; and Exhibit C, deposition of Kandis Shana
Martine, pp. 25-26.
Ms. Martine and Ms. Begay were in route to their
attorney’s office in downtown Jacksonville in a rental car,
which had been rented by Ms. Begay, but was being driven by
Ms. Martine, an authorized driver. See Exhibit B, Affidavit of
Kandis Martine at ¶~js and 9; Exhibit C, deposition of Kandis
Shana Martine, pp. 15-16; and Exhibit 0, deposition of Lucy
Laughter Begay, p. 20. Ms. Martine was driving at the request
of Ms. Begay due to the fact that Ms. Begay was uncomfortable
17
Case 3:09-cv-00998-HES-JRK Document 46 Filed 10/25/10 Page 17 of 21 PageID 573
driving in city traffic. See Exhibit B, Affidavit of Kandis
Martine at ¶9; and Exhibit 0, deposition of Lucy Laughter
Begay, pp. 31-32. At that time, Ms. Martine, while looking for
parking, accidentally turned the wrong way down a one way
street. See Exhibit B, Affidavit of Kandis Martine at ¶~j8 and
9; Exhibit C, deposition of Kandis Shana Martine, pp. 15-15;
26-27; and Exhibit D, deposition of Lucy Laughter Begay, p.
20. It is this action that Plaintiffs’ say is the primary
cause of their injuries.
Based on these undisputed facts, Defendant Kandis
Martine, an employee of the Contractor (i.e., the Navajo
Nation) , was doing work under and in furtherance of the 638
Contract with the United States Department of the Interior,
and so this action must be deemed to be an action against the
United States, be defended by the Attorney General and be
afforded the full protection and coverage of the Federal Tort
Claims Act. Public Law No 101-512, Title III, § 314; See also
25 C.F.R. § 900.197; Exhibit A, Affidavit of Regina Yazzie at
¶4 and Exhibit 2 attached thereto (2007 Annual Funding
Agreement)
18
Case 3:09-cv-00998-HES-JRK Document 46 Filed 10/25/10 Page 18 of 21 PageID 574
IV. CONCLUSION
Liability for Plaintiffs’ claims have, by operation of
law, been assumed by the United States under the Federal Tort
Claims Act and Plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy is against the
United States in Federal Court. The Navajo Nation has an
Indian Self-Determination Act (93-638) contract with the
Department of the Interior of the United States of America to
administer the Navajo Children and Family Services Program
(ICwA) . The law and this 638 Contract specifically provide
that any employee of the Navajo Nation that is doing work in
furtherance of this 638 Contract is deemed to be an employee
of the United States for purposes of suit.
The undisputed facts of this case clearly show that
Defendant Kandis Martine was acting pursuant and in
furtherance of this 638 Contract when the accident that gives
rise to this suit occurred. As such, this civil action must be
deemed an action against the United States, defended by the
Attorney General, and afforded the full protection and
coverage of the Federal Tort Claims Act.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Kandis Martine respectfully requests
that the Court enter partial Summary Judgment in her favor,
and find that:
19
Case 3:09-cv-00998-HES-JRK Document 46 Filed 10/25/10 Page 19 of 21 PageID 575
1. There is no genuine issue of material fact and
Defendant is entitled to Judgment as a matter of law that she
is deemed to be an employee of the United States because she
was performing work under a 93-638 Contract with the United
States when the accident that is the subject of this dispute
occurred.
2. There is no genuine issue of material fact and
Defendant is entitled to Judgment as a matter of law that she
was not acting in her individual capacity when the accident
that is the subject of this dispute occurred.
Respectfully submitted,MASON & ISAAC5ON, P.A.
-4,ByPab~acic)~..— . ãsoNew Mexico Bar #: 27091Federal Bar ID: #9mc5-167104 E AztecPC Box 1772Gallup, NM 87305p. mason@milawf irm . net(505) 722-4463fax: (505) 722-2629
Case 3:09-cv-00998-HES-JRK Document 46 Filed 10/25/10 Page 20 of 21 PageID 576
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy hereof hasbeen furnished by ELECTRONIC SERVICE via the Courts ElectronicFiling and Service to:
R Frank Myers, Esq.Pearson & Myers, P.A.703 N. Monroe St.Tallahassee, FL 32303-6138
Matthew N. Posgay, Esq.Coker, Schickel, Sorenson & Posgay, PA,136 E. Bay St.Jacksonville, FL 32201
Ronnie Carter, Esq.United States Attorney’s Office300 N. Hogan St., Suite 700Jacksonville, FL 32202
jA
this cZc~~day of October, 2010
Mason
Case 3:09-cv-00998-HES-JRK Document 46 Filed 10/25/10 Page 21 of 21 PageID 577