MEMORANDUM OPINION

GEORGE J. HAZEL, District Judge.

Plaintiff Modesta Men brought this action against Defendants Katia Yvette Bruce1 and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority ("WMATA"). alleging damages related to a vehicular collision. ECF No. 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446. WMATA removed this matter from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. Maryland to this Court. ECF No. 1. This Memorandum Opinion and accompanying Order address Defendant WMATA's Motion to Dismiss Defendant Katia Yvette Bruce (ECF No. 6). A hearing is unnecessary. Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2014). For the reasons stated below. Defendant WMATA's Motion to Dismiss Katia Yvette Bruce is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND2

On November 26, 2013. Plaintiff was operating a vehicle on Cherry Hill Road in Prince George's County. Maryland. ECF No. 2 ¶ 5. As Plaintiff drove through the intersection of Cherry Hill Road and Calverton Boulevard, Defendant Bruce failed to stop for a Hashing red light and collided with Plaintiffs vehicle. ECF No. 2 ¶ 6. At the time of the collision. Bruce was operating a vehicle owned by Defendant WMATA and acting as an agent for WMATA. ECF No. 2 ¶ 6; ECF No. 5 ¶ 6 ("Defendant WMATA denies the allegations contained in Paragraph Six of Plaintiffs Complaint, except that Defendant WMATA admits that Defendant Katia Yvette Bruce was acting in the scope of her agency as an operator of a Metro Access motor vehicle owned by the Defendant WMATA at the time of the occurrence").

Plaintiff filed her Complaint in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. Maryland on January 8, 2016. ECF No. 2. On February 19, 2016. WMATA removed the matter to this Court, filed an Answer, and filed a Motion to Dismiss as to Defendant Bruce only. ECF Nos. 1, 5, 6. Plaintiff has not filed an Opposition to WMATA's Motion to Dismiss, which was due on March 7, 2016.3

II. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(1). 12(b)(6). and 12(h)(3). WMATA argues that Plaintiffs claims against Bruce should be dismissed. ECF No. 6. Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised by a defendant under Rule 12(b)(1). Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). If the Court determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court must dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). In instances in which immunity is established, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Smith v. Hash. Metro. Area. Transit Auth., 290 F.3d 201, 205 (4th Cir. 2002) ("To the extent the METRO'S complained-of actions fall within its cloak of immunity, we lack subject matter jurisdiction over such claims.").

Rule 12(b)(6) permits a defendant to present a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, `to stale a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009); see also Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Advanced Surgery Ctr. of Bethesda. LLC, No. DKC 14-2376, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91689, at * 13 (D. Md. July 15, 2015) ("At this stage, all well-pled allegations in a complaint must be considered as true and all factual allegations must be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

WMATA is an agency of the State of Maryland, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the District of Columbia created for the design and implementation of a unified regional transit system. Transp. 10-204(1)(d) and (2). As a government agency, it is immune from suit except to the extent that is waives sovereign immunity. Smith v. Cromer, 159 F.3d 875, 879 (4th Cir. 1998) ("Where an agency has not waived its immunity to suit, the stale court (and the federal court on removal) lacks jurisdiction to proceed against a federal employee acting pursuant to agency direction."). Under Section 80 of the WMATA Compact,

Md. Code Ann. Transp. § 10-204(80) (LexisNexis 2016) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs claim against Defendant Bruce is barred by immunity because Bruce was acting as an agent for WMATA at the time of the collision. ECF No. 2 ¶ 6. Plaintiffs exclusive remedy for its alleged tort is her claim against WMATA. Accordingly, the Court must be dismiss the claim against Bruce for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendant WMATA's Motion to Dismiss Defendant Katia Yvette Bruce (ECF No. 6). Defendant Bruce shall be removed from this case. A separate Order shall follow.