28 U.S. Code § 2679. Exclusiveness of remedy
Changes were made in phraseology.
The catchline and text of this section were changed and the section was renumbered “2678” by Senate amendment. See 80th Congress Senate Report No. 1559.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, referred to in subsec. (d)(3), are set out in the Appendix to this title.
1988—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 100–694, § 5, amended subsec. (b) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (b) read as follows: “The remedy against the United States provided by sections 1346(b) and 2672 of this title for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death, resulting from the operation by any employee of the Government of any motor vehicle while acting within the scope of his office or employment, shall hereafter be exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding by reason of the same subject matter against the employee or his estate whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.”
Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 100–694, § 6, amended subsec. (d) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (d) read as follows: “Upon a certification by the Attorney General that the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the incident out of which the suit arose, any such civil action or proceeding commenced in a State court shall be removed without bond at any time before trial by the Attorney General to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending and the proceedings deemed a tort action brought against the United States under the provisions of this title and all references thereto. Should a United States district court determine on a hearing on a motion to remand held before a trial on the merits that the case so removed is one in which a remedy by suit within the meaning of subsection (b) of this section is not available against the United States, the case shall be remanded to the State court.”
1961—Pub. L. 87–258 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) to (e).
 So in original. Probably should be a reference to Rule 4(i).