Egger alleged that her car was damaged when a DEA agent backed into it. Slip op. at 1. When the DEA offered $100, Egger sued the DEA agent in small claims/justice court. Id. The agent removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442, then the government moved to substitute itself for the DEA agent under the provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-80. Id. at 2. Shortly after the District Court granted that motion, the government moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) on the grounds that Egger’s failure to exhaust her administrative remedies deprived the District Court of jurisdiction. Id. at 2-3. The District Court noted that the $100 the DEA offered was not a final denial of her claim and that the FTCA’s six-month waiting period for suit had not expired when Egger’s sued. Id. at 3-5. Therefore, under 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a), the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case under Rule 12(b)(1).
