Claire E. Gallea and Linda S. Huckleberry v. United States of America, and Rodney Smith

The issue presented is whether a federal enclave which sells alcohol to an obviously intoxicated minor is immune from tort liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) because it is exempt from California liquor licensing requirements.

BACKGROUND

In 1983, Candy Lynn Gallea and Rodney Smith, both minors, became intoxicated in the Enlisted Club Marine Barracks (“Club”). The Club is operated by the Department of Defense at the Concord Naval Base in California and is not subject to California liquor licensing requirements.

*1404 Although Smith became obviously intoxicated, Club employees continued to serve him alcoholic drinks. Smith and Miss Gal-lea left on his motorcycle, which crashed and killed Gallea.

Appellants, Gallea’s natural parents, originally brought their wrongful death claims in state court in October 1983. The government petitioned for removal and, after appellants filed their complaint in district court, moved to dismiss. Without giving its reasons, the district court dismissed the United States and remanded the case against the remaining defendant to state court. We affirm.

ANALYSIS

I. Appellate Jurisdiction

Generally, 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (d) forbids…

concurring:

I concur, but my understanding of the issue differs slightly from that of my colleagues, so I write a separate statement. The majority views the case solely from the standpoint of the California statute. The dispositive question, though, is the operation of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2674 . The statute provides that the United States shall be liable in tort “in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances....” Id.

A focus on the federal statute discloses a plausible statutory argument in favor of the appellants. The policy of the Federal Tort Claims Act is to determine government liability in accordance with state law. Where licensing status is expressly incorporated into state tort law as ap element of liability, that would seem to require making certain assumptions respecting the regime that would prevail if the enclave were governed not only by California’s tort law but also by its liquor licensing scheme. To do otherwise would make liability turn on the fact that the activity occurred on federal property, a result Congress could not have intended when it enacted the Tort Claims Act. Under a generous…

779 F.2d 1403 Claire E. GALLEA and Linda S. Huckleberry, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee, and Rodney Smith, Defendant. No. 85-1856. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Dec. 11, 1985. Decided Jan. 2, 1986. Michael J. Veiluva, Trembath, McCabe, Schwartz, Evans & Levy, Concord, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants. Thomas R. Port, La Follette, Johnson, Schroeter & DeHaas, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Before WRIGHT, KENNEDY and BEEZER, Circuit Judges. EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge. 1 The issue presented is whether a federal enclave which sells alcohol to an obviously intoxicated minor is immune from tort liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") because it is exempt from California liquor licensing requirements. BACKGROUND 2 In 1983, Candy Lynn Gallea and Rodney Smith, both minors, became intoxicated in the Enlisted Club Marine Barracks ("Club"). The Club is operated by the Department of Defense at the Concord Naval Base in California and is not subject to California liquor licensing requirements. 3…