Date: 10-29-2024

Case Style:

Rhonda Mengert v. United States of America

Case Number: 5:21-CV-443

Judge: Clair V. Egan

Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best * Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: Daniel Aguilar

Description:

Tulsa, Oklahoma personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and false imprisonment.

This case stems from Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) subjecting plaintiff
Rhonda Mengert to an inspection in a private room at Tulsa International Airport. After
Mengert’s initial security screening and a subsequent pat-down left TSOs unsure as to the
nature of an object in her groin area—which turned out to be an ordinary feminine
hygiene product—TSOs led her to a private screening room and directed her to lower her
pants and remove the object for examination. Mengert has alleged that the incident
caused her to experience symptoms of a panic attack, and that her symptoms have
recurred on a regular basis when she travels by plane. Mengert brought claims against
the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) alleging intentional
infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and false imprisonment. Relevant here, the district
court denied the government’s motion to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity; granted the government’s
motion to dismiss the IIED claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); denied Mengert’s
untimely motion for leave to amend her complaint; and granted the government’s motion
for summary judgment on Mengert’s false imprisonment claim. All four of these
decisions are challenged on appeal.

Outcome: We conclude that TSOs are “investigative or law enforcement officers” under
28 U.S.C. § 2680(h)’s law enforcement proviso, and therefore the United States
waived its sovereign immunity for Mengert’s claims challenging the TSOs’ conduct.
However, Mengert’s claims fail on the merits—the IIED claim was properly
dismissed because Mengert failed to allege sufficiently severe emotional distress, and
the district court properly granted summary judgment for the government on the false
arrest claim because Mengert’s claim challenges the TSO’s conduct during her
detention, not the lawfulness of the detention itself. Finally, Mengert has failed to
establish “good cause” for her untimely motion for leave to amend the complaint, and
the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying that motion. Therefore, we
AFFIRM.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: