On Motion to Dismiss:
The motion by third-party defendant American Samoa Government ("ASG") to dismiss the third-party complaint against it for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction came regularly for hearing on July 8, 1992.
ASG claims that this Court can have no jurisdiction over ASG until defendant/third-party plaintiff Southwest Marine of Samoa, Inc. ("SWM Samoa") has filed an administrative claim that is denied by ASG; this administrative claim must be pursued prior to filing suit. SWM Samoa counters that the Federal Tort Claims Act (F.T.C.A.), on which the American Samoa Government Tort Claims Act is based, allows an exception for third-party claims and that plaintiffs but not SWM Samoa suffered the injury, and thus only plaintiffs should file any administrative claim. We find SWM Samoa’s reasoning both logical and enticing, but we find that we are compelled to rule for ASG.
The requirement of filing an administrative claim pursuant to A.S.C.A. § 43.1205 before filing suit is, in fact, jurisdictional. Gobrait v. Americana Hotels, Inc., 1 A.S.R.2d 1 (Trial Div. 1978); Mataipule v. Tifaimoana Partnership, Ltd., 14 A.S.R.2d 100 (1990); Crispin v. ASG, 21 A.S.R.2d 60 (Trial Div. 1992). The F.T.C.A. does also, in fact, provide an exception to this requirement for third-party complaints. This exception allows a third-party plaintiff to bring the government into federal district court as a third-party defendant without first filing an administrative claim, because "the third party plaintiff is forced into the action by the plaintiff and has no choice but to assert any claims he might have against those who might be responsible for the acts he is charged with in the plaintiffs complaint." Rosario v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., 531 F.2d 1227, 1234 (3d Cir. 1976). This reasoning would persuade us in favor of SWM Samoa, but the historical, legislative relationship between the federal and American Samoa acts compels us otherwise.