Meeks et al. v. United States

Meeks · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division · January 20, 2026 · No. 16-cv-10444

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denies the United States’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or, alternatively, for summary judgment in Meeks v. United States. The court holds that the plaintiffs’ Federal Tort Claims Act claims concerning the EPA’s response to the Flint Water Crisis satisfy the analogous private-person liability requirement and are not barred by the misrepresentation or discretionary-function exceptions. The opinion relies in part on prior rulings in related Flint Water Cases and Burgess litigation.

Holdings

  1. When an FTCA jurisdictional challenge depends on factual disputes that also bear on the merits of the negligence claim, the court should apply the summary-judgment safeguards of Rule 56 rather than resolve the dispute solely under Rule 12(b)(1).
  2. The plaintiffs presented genuine disputes of material fact concerning whether the EPA's conduct could establish liability under Michigan's Good Samaritan doctrine, including the increased-risk, undertaking-to-perform-a-duty, and reliance bases in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A(a)–(c).
  3. The United States did not establish that the EPA's challenged conduct was shielded by the discretionary-function exception, and genuine factual disputes remained concerning whether the EPA made or should have made a noncompliance finding triggering mandatory duties under 42 U.S.C. § 300g-3(a)(1).

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence for a rational factfinder to conclude that a similarly situated private person would be liable under Michigan's Good Samaritan doctrine and therefore satisfy the FTCA's analogous private-liability requirement.
  2. Whether the EPA's challenged conduct was protected by the FTCA's discretionary-function exception.
  3. Whether the court should analyze the United States' factual jurisdictional attacks under Rule 12(b)(1) or Rule 56 because the jurisdictional issues were intertwined with the merits.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (22)

  • F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475–78 (1994)(followed)
  • Brownback v. King, 592 U.S. 209, 212, 218 (2021)(followed)
  • Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531, 536–37 (1988)(followed)
  • United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 322–25, 329–31 (1991)(distinguished)
  • Myers v. United States, 17 F.3d 890, 895–98, 902–04 (6th Cir. 1994)(distinguished)
  • Gentek Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 491 F.3d 320, 330 (6th Cir. 2007)(followed)
  • Wright v. United States, No. 95-5175, 1996 WL 172119, at *3–5 (6th Cir. Apr. 11, 1996)(followed)
  • Mays v. City of Flint, 871 F.3d 437, 446–47 (6th Cir. 2017)(followed)
  • In re Flint Water Cases, 482 F. Supp. 3d 601, 615–38 (E.D. Mich. 2020)(followed)
  • In re Flint Water Cases, 627 F. Supp. 3d 734, 740 (E.D. Mich. 2022)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 22.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…