Wells v. Federal Aviation Administration

United States District Court for the District of Alaska
Wells v. Federal Aviation Administration (2022)

Wells v. Federal Aviation Administration

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

PAUL WELLS, KIMBERLY WELLS, individually and as a marital community, and JUSTIN LUNN, Case No. 3:22-cv-00187-JMK KIMBERLY LUNN, individually and as a marital community, ORDER GRANTING NOTICE OF Plaintiffs, SUBSTITUTION

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DOES 1-5

Defendants.

Before the Court at Docket 4 is the Government’s Notice of Substitution. The Government submitted a Certification of Scope of Employment with its Notice, in which the Government certified that named Defendants Howard Martin, Patrick Sullivan, Glenn H. Brown, Ty Bartausky, and Beth Clairborne were acting within the scope of their employment with the Federal Aviation Administration at all times relevant to this action.1

1 Docket 4-1. Plaintiffs Paul Wells, Kimberly June Wells, Justin Lunn, and Kimberly Lunn have not opposed or objected to the Government’s scope-of-employment certification.2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the United States is substituted as a Defendant in the place of Defendants Howard Martin, Patrick Sullivan, Glenn H. Brown, Ty Bartausky, and Beth Clairborne. The clerk will amend the caption to substitute and name the United States as a defendant in place of individual defendants Howard Martin, Patrick Sullivan, Glenn H. Brown, Ty Bartausky, and Beth Clairborne.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of December, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Joshua M. Kindred JOSHUA M. KINDRED United States District Judge

2 Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno,

515 U.S. 417, 436

(1995) (construing the Westfall Act to allow plaintiffs to “present to the District Court their objections to the Attorney General’s scope-of-employment certification.”).

Reference

Status
Unknown