(a) The United States Attorney for the district where the civil action or proceeding is brought, or any Director of the Torts Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, is authorized to make the statutory certification that the Federal employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment with the Federal Government at the time of the incident out of which the suit arose.
(b) The United States Attorney for the district where the civil action or proceeding is brought, or any Director of the Torts Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, is authorized to make the statutory certification that the covered person was acting at the time of the incident out of which the suit arose under circumstances in which Congress has provided by statute that the remedy provided by the Federal Tort Claims Act is made the exclusive remedy.
(c) A certification under this section may be withdrawn if a further evaluation of the relevant facts or the consideration of new or additional evidence calls for such action. The making, withholding, or withdrawing of certifications, and the removal and defense of, or refusal to remove or defend, such civil actions or proceedings shall be subject to the instructions and supervision of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Division or his or her designee.
[Order No. 2697-2003, 68 FR 74188, Dec. 23, 2003. Redesignated by Order No. 5968-2024, 89 FR 55517, July 5, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
188
cases (
95 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case:
Dolan v. United States, 514 F.3d 587 (6th Cir. 2008).
Dolan v. United States, 514 F.3d 587 (6th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 15.4 ; Id. Upon the United States Attorney’s certification, the employee is dismissed from the action, and the United States is substituted as defendant in place of the employee.”
Budik v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Med. Ctr., 937 F. Supp. 2d 5 (D.D.C. 2013).
· cites it 2× “” 28 C.F.R. § 15.4 (2012). While the Attorney General’s or United States Attorney’s certification that a federal employee was acting within the scope of his employment .”
Wuterich v. Murtha, 562 F.3d 375 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
“-, see also 28 C.F.R. § 15.4 . Upon the Attorney General’s certification, the federal employee is dismissed from the case and the United States is substituted as the defendant in place of the employee.”
De Masi v. Schumer, 608 F. Supp. 2d 516 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
· cites it 2× “§ 2679 (d) and 28 C.F.R. § 15.4 (“Section 15.4”), that Senator Schumer was acting within the scope of his employment as an officer or employee of the United States at the time of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs claims.”
Smith v. Brown, 296 F. Supp. 3d 648 (S.D. Ill. 2017).
“Response"); Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Substitute the United States as Defendant and to Dismiss the Case for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, filed July 31, 2017 (Docket # 21).”
Smith v. Clinton, 253 F. Supp. 3d 222 (D.D.C. 2017).
“; see also 28 C.F.R. § 15.4 (a) (delegating the authority to make Westfall Act certifications to “any Director of the Torts Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice”).”
Budik v. Ashley, 36 F. Supp. 3d 132 (D.D.C. 2014).
“28 C.F.R. § 15.4 (a) (2013); see Stokes v.”
Parker v. Blackerby, 368 F. Supp. 3d 611 (W.D.N.Y. 2019).
“§ 2679 (d)(l)-(2) ; see 28 C.F.R. § 15.4 ("The United States Attorney for the district where the civil action or proceeding is brought .”
Rector v. United States, 243 F. App'x 976 (6th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 15.4 Lastly, Rector argues that because the United States is not subject to suit for libel, slander, or misrepresentation, it cannot be substituted as the party-defendant.”
Aryai v. Forfeiture Support Assocs., LLC, 25 F. Supp. 3d 376 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
“) Under the FTCA, [u]pon certification ... that the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose, any civil action or proceeding commenced upon such claim .”
Wilson v. Libby, 498 F. Supp. 2d 74 (D.D.C. 2007).
“1 (Certification of Scope of Employment); see also 28 C.F.R. § 15.4 (2005). The United States has also filed a motion to dismiss the tort claim on *97 the ground that plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the FTCA.”
— 28 C.F.R. § 15.4(a) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.