Background
Orlonzo Hedrington filed a timely Federal Tort Claims Act suit alleging negligence by federal employees at a Veterans Administration medical center. A second suit filed later was dismissed as untimely. The district court then granted summary judgment in the first suit, ruling that the second suit’s dismissal precluded the first under claim preclusion doctrine.
The court’s reasoning
The panel held that the Federal Tort Claims Act requires applying the law of the state where the act occurred. Under California law, a judgment dismissing a claim based on the statute of limitations does not have claim preclusive effect. Additionally, applying preclusion here would result in manifest injustice because the plaintiff did not have an opportunity to litigate the merits in the second suit.
Under California law, a prior judgment of dismissal based on the statute of limitations lacks claim preclusive effect.
Koch v. Rodlin Enters., 273 Cal. Rptr. 438, 441 (Ct. App. 1990)
What it means going forward
The case is remanded for further proceedings, allowing the plaintiff’s negligence claim to proceed on the merits rather than being dismissed as time-barred by a prior procedural ruling.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download