Island City Lofts, L.L.C. v. USA etc.,

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 12, 2011
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 10-11649
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:09-cv-60595-JIC
ISLAND CITY LOFTS, L.L.C.,
a Florida limited liability company,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 12, 2011)
Before TJOFLAT and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and STEELE, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM:
Honorable John E. Steele, United States District Judge for the Middle District of*
Florida, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Island City Lofts, LLC (“ICL”) appeals the dismissal of its Federal Torts
Claims Act (“FTCA”) action against the United States and the United States Postal
Service. ICL alleged that it sent a letter by certified mail to a purchaser who had1
entered into a purchase and sale agreement for an ICL condominium. The return
receipt ICL received contained a signature on the line reserved for the letter’s
addressee, leading ICL to believe that the purchaser had received the letter. As a
result, ICL did not take any further action to notify the purchaser of the
information set forth in the letter. The letter carrier, however, had forged the
purchaser’s signature; the purchaser never actually received the letter. This
ultimately allowed the purchaser to rescind the purchase and sale agreement,
causing ICL to suffer economic damages in the form of lost profits from the failed
condominium sale.
Although the FTCA waives the United States’ sovereign immunity for some
torts, there are several exceptions to this waiver, see 28 U.S.C. § 2680, two of
which are relevant here. First, § 2680(h) provides that the FTCA does not apply to
“[a]ny claim arising out of . . . misrepresentation.” Second, § 2680(b) provides
We review the district court's grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to1
state a claim de novo , accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Mills v. Foremost Ins. Co., 511 F.3d 1300, 1303 (11th
Cir. 2008).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

that the FTCA does not apply to “[a]ny claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage,
or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter.”
If either of these exceptions apply, ICL’s claims are barred. We conclude
that the misrepresentation exception applies because the damages ICL sought
arose from its reliance on the letter carrier’s misrepresentation that the purchaser
had actually received ICL’s letter. See Block v. Neal, 460 U.S. 289, 295 (1983)
(stating that the misrepresentation exception in § 2680(h) applies to a claim in
which the plaintiff “allege[s] no injury that he would have suffered independently
of his reliance on the erroneous [representation]”). Accordingly, although we
believe that the postal service exception also applies, we need not address that
issue.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --