Friday, July 14, 2006

Sibel's FTCA case has been dismissed

* via a commentor over at EW's - the judge who was newly appointed to Sibel's FTCA case has dismissed (pdf) the case - she has two weeks to appeal:
"ORDERED that the Defendant’s motion to dismiss [Dkt. #6] is GRANTED; and
it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act,
28 U.S.C. § 2671-2680 (the “FTCA”) on theories of negligent investigation; negligent disclosure; negligent endangerment; negligent conversion of personal property; false light invasion of privacy; negligent infliction of emotional distress; and negligent interference with prospective economic opportunity is DISMISSED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint on or
before July 27, 2006, to state a claim for intentional conversion. If she fails to do so, this case will be dismissed in whole."
apparently (pdf) because:
"CONCLUSION: As explained above, Ms. Edmonds’s claims for negligent investigation are barred due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The other theories of recovery in the Complaint either do not come within the terms of the FTCA or are exempt under the FTCA. Accordingly, the Government’s motion to dismiss [Dkt. #6] will be granted, and Ms. Edmonds’s claim under the FTCA on theories of negligent investigation; negligent disclosure; negligent endangerment; negligent conversion of personal property; “false light” invasion of privacy; negligent infliction of emotional distress; and negligent interference with prospective economic opportunity will be dismissed. However, the Court will permit Ms. Edmonds to file an Amended Complaint on or before July 27, 2006, to state a claim for intentional conversion, if she wishes to do so. If she fails to timely file an Amended Complaint, this case will be dismissed in whole. A memorializing order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
boooooooo

2 comments:

calipendence said...

Luke,

Remember how I was thinking that her record of other cases almost looked too good to be true. That it almost seemed like they wanted others to believe that if there was a fair judge to replace Walton with, that this woman would be the one to do it. And you noted that her financial history was also *redacted* too! Hmmm!!!

lukery said...

yeah - you were on the money dude. does it seem unusual that she ruled on the case with 2 weeks of being appointed?