Cluster 783122

Research Found., Inc., 339 F.3d 942 , 946 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]ithout some mandate, the decision not to supervise the Heller Experiments was an act of discretion.”); Guile v. United States, 422 F.3d 221, 231 (5th Cir. 2005) (“Supervision of a contractor’s work, including the degree of oversight to exercise, is inherently a discretionary function.”).

Found., Inc., 339 F.3d 942, 945 (9th 7 Cir. 2003) (affirming lack of subject matter jurisdiction over claim for negligent 8 supervision and oversight of scientific experiments as barred by the discretionary 9 function exception). 10 11 B.

Found., Inc., 339 F.3d 942, 944 (9th Cir. 2003) (accepting the complaint’s factual allegations).

Reviewing de novo, Bibeau v. Pacific NW Research Found., Inc., 339 F.3d 942, 944 (9th Cir. 2003), we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the case for further proceedings.

A. The Gaubert test's first prong asks whether the alleged conduct "violated a specific and mandatory regulation or statute." Bibeau, 339 F.3d at 945.

A. The Gaubert test’s first prong asks whether the alleged conduct “violated a specific and mandatory regulation or stat- ute.” Bibeau, 339 F.3d at 945.

Second, the challenged action must “involve[] a decision susceptible to social, economic, or political policy analysis.” Id. *772 at 1181. “[W]hen statutes, policies, regulations, or guidelines allow a government official to exercise discretion, ‘it must be presumed that the agent’s acts are grounded in policy when exercising that discretion.’ ” Bibeau v. Pacific Northwest Research Foundation, Inc., 339 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S.…