SunSouth Bank v. First NBC Bank, et al.

Filing 89

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that SunSouth's 86 MOTION to Alter or amend Judgment or for relief from order is DENIED, as further set out. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 4/12/16. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SUNSOUTH BANK,
Plaintiff,
v.
FIRST NBC BANK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-379-WKW
[WO]

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment or for
Relief from Order (Doc. # 86), to which Defendants filed a response (Doc. # 88).
Upon consideration of the record, the arguments of counsel, and the relevant law,
the motion is due to be denied.
I. BACKGROUND
The circumstances giving rise to this case have been addressed in prior
opinions. (See, e.g., Doc. # 84.) Briefly, Plaintiff SunSouth Bank (“SunSouth”)
participated in a lending transaction with Central Progressive Bank (“CPB”), the
terms of which were memorialized in a participation agreement. CPB eventually
failed, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) took control of CPB
as receiver. In a whole bank sale, Defendant First NBC Bank (“First NBC”) took
ownership of CPB’s assets. As to the loan in which SunSouth participated, First

NBC sold its interest to Defendant HCB Financial Corp (“HCB”). SunSouth alleges
that First NBC and HCB breached the participation agreement.
Defendants First NBC and HCB (collectively, “Defendants”) filed two
motions challenging the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Their first motion, which was facial in
nature, was denied. (Doc. # 41.) After the pretrial conference, at which Defendants
represented that they had reason to question the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction,
the parties were ordered to file briefs addressing the defenses on which Defendants
intended to rely. (Doc. # 57.) Defendants filed a renewed 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss
(Doc. # 69), this time asserting a factual attack with evidentiary support.1 SunSouth
filed a response (Doc. # 79), and Defendants filed a reply (Doc. # 81). The renewed
motion to dismiss was granted for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the action
was dismissed. (Docs. # 84 and 85.)
II. DISCUSSION
In the motion now before the court, SunSouth seeks relief, pursuant to Rules
59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, from the Order dismissing this
action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The motion will be discussed as it
relates to Rules 59 and 60 respectively.

Defendants’ renewed motion also raised grounds for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), but
those issues were not reached.
1

2

A.

Sunsouth Is Not Entitled to Rule 59 Relief
The alteration or amendment of a judgment pursuant to Rule 59 is an

extraordinary remedy to be granted only under limited circumstances. Arthur v.
King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007). It cannot be used as a vehicle to
reexamine resolved matters, raise new arguments, or present evidence that was
previously available. Id. To justify Rule 59 relief, the moving party must show that
(1) there has been an intervening change in controlling law, (2) there is newly
available evidence, or (3) there are clear errors of law or fact to be corrected.
Pennington v. Colvin, No. 3:12-CV-4191-SLB, 2014 WL 7178368, at *1 (N.D. Ala.
Dec. 16, 2014).
Put simply, SunSouth has made no showing that it is entitled to relief from the
judgment under Rule 59. SunSouth points to no intervening change in law since the
dismissal of this case. In fact, aside from its passing references to Rules 59 and 60,
SunSouth’s motion cites no legal authority supporting its position.

Nor has

SunSouth made reference to any evidence justifying this extraordinary request. The
factual assertions set forth in the motion derive solely from the pleadings, which are
insufficient to rebut the evidence submitted in conjunction with Defendants’
renewed 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. See Lawrence v. Dunbar, 919 F.2d 1525, 1529
(11th Cir. 1990) (holding that on a factual attack, no presumptive truthfulness
attaches to the allegations in the complaint).
3

With respect to errors of law or fact, SunSouth makes a few hasty arguments,
but none of them is availing. SunSouth offers a laundry list of allegedly erroneous
factual findings, but offers no evidence rebutting the finding that this dispute arose
prior to CPB’s failure and thus is jurisdictionally barred. (See Doc. # 86, at 8–10.)
SunSouth also offers arguments, unadorned by legal authority, that the “FDIC
cannot modify a contract right” and that the “FDIC cannot deprive a third party of
due process of law.” (Doc. # 86, at 10.) These “erroneous legal conclusions,” as
they are labeled in SunSouth’s motion, have no bearing on the issue of subject-matter
jurisdiction. SunSouth has not shown that the dismissal of this action was in error.
To the extent it seeks relief under Rule 59, SunSouth’s motion will be denied.
B.

SunSouth Is Not Entitled to Rule 60 Relief
SunSouth’s motion is likewise inadequate to justify relief under Rule 60. Rule

60(a) allows for the correction of mere clerical mistakes arising from “oversight or
omission.” Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Matassino, 517 F. App’x 687, 688
(11th Cir. 2013). Rule 60(b) provides that a party may be relieved from a judgment
because of mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, misconduct, a void judgment,
or satisfaction of a judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The circumstances do not fit
any of these Rule 60 conditions.
Nothing about the errors alleged in SunSouth’s motion can be characterized
as clerical. See Matassino, 517 F. App’x at 688. Nor has SunSouth brought forth
4

any newly discovered evidence bearing on the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2); Part II.A, supra. It is also clear that this is not a situation
in which SunSouth seeks relief from a satisfied judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(5).
With respect to Rule 60(b)(3), SunSouth has not met its burden of showing
that the judgment was procured through fraud, mistake, misrepresentation, or
misconduct by the opposing party. To prevail on a motion for relief under this
provision, the moving party must prove the fraud, mistake, misrepresentation, or
misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. Waddell v. Hendry Cty. Sheriff’s
Office, 329 F.3d 1300, 1309 (11th Cir. 2003). The thrust of SunSouth’s argument
on this point, though it is unfocused, appears to be that Defendants engaged in
misconduct by bringing a renewed 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss after their initial
12(b)(1) motion had already been denied.
This theory is a non-starter for several reasons. The issue of subject-matter
jurisdiction is ripe for review at any stage of the proceedings. Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3). What is more, Defendants were ordered to brief the issue of subject-matter
jurisdiction a second time, and SunSouth was afforded an opportunity to respond.
(See Doc. # 57.) Instead of meeting Defendants’ evidence with evidence of its own,
SunSouth chose to defend against the factual attack by incorporating the arguments
it made in response to Defendants’ previous, unsuccessful facial attack on subject5

matter jurisdiction.

Even if SunSouth had made some allegation of conduct that

actually rose to the level of fraud or misconduct, it came forward with no evidence
that would substantiate those allegations. SunSouth has not shown by clear and
convincing proof that the judgment was procured through fraud or misconduct.
SunSouth’s motion is also insufficient to show that it is entitled to relief under
Rule 60(b)(4). To prevail on a motion under this provision, the moving party must
show that the judgment is void because it is based on some type of jurisdictional
error or violation of due process. United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559
U.S. 260, 269–70 (2010). Neither of these conditions is satisfied. SunSouth’s action
was dismissed because the unrebutted evidence submitted in conjunction with
Defendants’ factual attack showed that SunSouth’s claim arose prior to CPB’s
failure. (Doc. # 84, at 11.) The action therefore was barred for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. (Doc. # 84, at 11); see 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d). SunSouth had
ample opportunity to offer rebuttal evidence in response to Defendants’ factual
attack, but it chose not to do so. On the record as it existed at the time of Defendants’
renewed motion, the evidence showed that subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking.
SunSouth’s unsubstantiated contentions cannot disturb the viability of this
legal conclusion. SunSouth argues, in conclusory fashion, that the judgment is void
because it “deprives [it] of property without due process of law.” (Doc. # 86, at 11.)
SunSouth received notice of Defendants’ renewed 12(b)(1) motion and took
6

advantage of the opportunity to respond. That SunSouth neglected to come forward
with evidence in response to a factual attack does not evince any denial of due
process. With respect to relief under Rule 60, SunSouth’s motion will be denied.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that SunSouth’s Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment or for Relief from Order (Doc. # 86) is DENIED.
DONE this 12th day of April, 2016.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7