Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

STOKES v. USPS

July 18, 1996

TONYIA STOKES, Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, et al., Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: URBINA

 Granting Defendants' Motion To Dismiss

 I. Background

 Plaintiff, Tonyia Stokes, filed the above-captioned action on May 12, 1995 alleging that the United States Postal Service (USPS) negligently handled the processing of an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax levy against her wages. In March 1993, USPS received a request from the IRS for a tax levy of $ 2,672.71 on the plaintiff's wages. In response to the IRS's request, the USPS garnished $ 735.71 from plaintiff's paycheck for the pay-period (p/p) 5 of 1993 and $ 792.04 in p/p 6 of 1993. Subsequently, plaintiff entered into a Payroll Deduction Agreement with the IRS whereby $ 100.00 would be garnished from each of her paychecks until she satisfied all her outstanding tax obligations. This arrangement began with p/p 8 of 1993 and continued through p/p 15 of 1993.

 In p/p 16 of 1993, the USPS withheld $ 731.09 from plaintiff's paycheck because of another IRS request for a tax levy, amounting to $ 1,977.12. In p/p 17 of 1993, the USPS garnished $ 701.77 for the same reason.

 Plaintiff subsequently learned from the IRS that her previous Payroll Deduction Agreement had been unilaterally cancelled by the IRS because of the USPS' failure to complete the necessary paperwork. In response to these two large payroll deductions and the cancellation of her original Payroll Deduction Agreement, plaintiff entered into another Payroll Deduction Agreement with the IRS. A $ 100.00 deduction from her paycheck began with p/p 19 of 1993 and continued through p/p 21 of 1993.

 In November 1993, the USPS received another request for a tax levy from the IRS to be deducted from plaintiff's wages. The amount of this levy was $ 1,124.21. The USPS received a fourth IRS request for a levy in February 1994 for the amount of $ 1,150.10. In response to this latest tax levy, the USPS withheld plaintiff's entire net pay for p/p 6 of 1994. The amount withheld from plaintiff's p/p 6 paycheck was $ 889.30, which represented her entire net pay. The USPS admitted that this action was the result of a computer error on its part. All levies have since been released by the IRS as plaintiff has satisfied all her outstanding tax obligations.

 After the entire net pay was withheld from her p/p 6 paycheck, plaintiff sought and obtained a meeting with Linda Venable, Manager of Finance, at the General Mail Facility located in Washington, D.C. At this meeting, plaintiff requested a salary advance. Ms. Venable denied this request on behalf of the USPS. On April 2, 1994, plaintiff mailed Ms. Venable a letter again requesting a salary advance. Subsequently, plaintiff met with the Postmaster of Washington, D.C., Mr. David Clark, Ms. Venable and Mr. Herb Hollar, Supervisor of Finance at the USPS. Again, her request for a salary advance, to replace the amount taken from her paycheck due to the USPS's accounting error, was denied.

 Plaintiff then sent copies of her April 2, 1994 written request for a payroll advance to various officials in the USPS. Sometime during this period, the USPS reversed its position, granted plaintiff a salary advance and forwarded two checks to her totalling $ 869.05.

 Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the Defendants' actions she has suffered great mental stress, loss of personal property and eviction from her place of residence. Plaintiff seeks $ 6,000.00 in compensatory damages and $ 444,000.00 in punitive damages.

 II. ANALYSIS3

 Defendants' argue that plaintiff has failed to present her claim to the USPS, as required by the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Defendants posit that plaintiff's failure to follow the presentment requirements embodied in the FTCA prevents this court from having subject matter jurisdiction over the present controversy. Conversely, plaintiff argues that the April 2, 1994 letter suffices to satisfy the presentment requirements of the FTCA. Alternatively, plaintiff ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.