Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dane v. Indymac Mortgage Services

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

October 11, 2013

MARGI R. DANE AND FRANCIS
v.
DANE, Plaintiffs,
v.
INDYMAC MORTGAGE SERVICES and INDYMAC BANK, FSB, both now known as OneWest Bank, FSB, Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Margi and Francis Dane filed a complaint [1] against IndyMac Mortgage Services and IndyMac Bank, FSB ("IndyMac"), [1] on May 2, 2013. The Danes assert a claim under Oregon's Unfair Trade Practices Act ("UTPA"), claims of breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and a claim for reformation. OneWest Bank, FSB ("OneWest"), moved [9] to dismiss the complaint on June 17, 2013. Because I find that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over these claims, I grant OneWest's motion.

DISCUSSION

The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act ("FIRREA") empowers the FDIC to "act as receiver or conservator of a failed institution for the protection of depositors and creditors." Benson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 1207, 1211 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation omitted). FIRREA lays out a scheme for asserting claims against a financial institution subject to FDIC receivership or conservatorship. 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(3)-(13). Where a financial institution has failed and the FDIC has assumed receivership, "no court shall have jurisdiction over... (ii) any claim relating to any act or omission of such institution or the [FDIC] as receiver" unless that claim was first exhausted before the FDIC. 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(13)(D)(ii); Benson, 673 F.3d at 1211-12.

FIRREA's jurisdiction-stripping provision "distinguishes claims on their factual bases rather than on the identity of the defendant." Benson, 673 F.3d at 1212. A plaintiff is required to exhaust her claim before the FDIC whenever it is based on the conduct of a failed institution, even where the plaintiff does not name that institution as a defendant. Id. The jurisdictional bar applies even where the failed bank or some of its assets are transferred to another bank by the FDIC. Id. at 1214-15.[2]

Defendant IndyMac is a failed institution, and claims based on its conduct before entering receivership are subject to FIRREA's exhaustion requirement. The FDIC was appointed receiver of IndyMac on July 11, 2008. (Master Purch. Agr. [10] at 44.) In March of 2009, OneWest and the FDIC executed a purchase agreement for certain of IndyMac's assets and liabilities. ( Id.; Serv. Purch. Agr. [10] at 49.) Claims based on IndyMac's conduct before the FDIC took control are subject to the exhaustion requirement notwithstanding OneWest's purchase of IndyMac's assets.

The Danes do not allege in their complaint that they have ever presented their claims against IndyMac to the FDIC. This Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction under FIRREA.

CONCLUSION

Because I find that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, OneWest's motion to dismiss [9] is GRANTED. Leave to amend is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.