First Financial Bank NA v. Claassen et al

Filing 21

ORDER granting 8 FDIC's Motion to Dismiss, Counterclaims against FDIC or IUB-FSB, or based on acts or omissions of FDIC or IUB-FSB, are dismissed. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 10/25/11.(LSP)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 No. CV11-01728-PHX DGC Theodore F. Claassen, a married man acting in his separate capacity, ORDER Counterclaimant, 11 12 v. 13 First Financial Bank, N.A., as Successor in Interest to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Irwin Union Bank, 14 15 Counter-Defendant 16 17 18 In December 2010, counter-defendant First Financial Bank (“FFB”) commenced a 19 judicial foreclosure and collection action against Claassen. Doc. 14-1. Claassen then 20 filed a counterclaim against FFB, asserting breach of contract (count one), breach of the 21 covenant of good faith and fair dealing (count two), and fraud (count three). Doc. 14-1. 22 The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), in its capacity as receiver for Irwin 23 Union Bank, F.S.B. (“IUB-FSB”), has filed a motion to dismiss all of Claassen’s 24 counterclaims, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 18211 and Rules 12(b)(1) and 14(a)(2)(C) of the 25 26 27 28 1 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(13)(D) provides that: “no court shall have jurisdiction over (i) any claim or action for payment from . . . the assets of any depository institution for which the Corporation has been appointed receiver . . . or (ii) any claim relating to any act or omission of such institution or the Corporation as receiver.” Furthermore, §1821(d)(6)(A) requires that a claimant utilize administrative remedies before filing a 1 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent that the counterclaims relate to any act or 2 omission of IUB-FSB or FDIC. Doc. 8 at 2. 3 Claassen denies that his counterclaim asserts any claim related to the FDIC’s 4 and/or IUB-FSB’s conduct. Doc. 14 at 1–2. Claassen further contends that the alleged 5 breaches and fraud occurred after FFB became the undisputed owner of the loan 6 agreement. Id. at 1–2. Claassen maintains that he “does not, as alleged by the FDIC, 7 seek recovery for the FDIC and/or Irwin’s conduct.” Id. 8 Claassen’s counterclaim contains numerous allegations pertaining to acts or 9 omissions of the FDIC or IUB-FSB. Doc. 14-1, at ¶¶ 21, 22, 24-33, 37, 39, 40, 47, 52. 10 Federal law precludes the Court from acquiring jurisdiction over these claims, even when 11 the claims are asserted against purchasers of assets from the FDIC. 12 1821(d)(13)(D); Village of Oakwood v. State Bank & Trust Co., 519 F. Supp. 2d 730, 738 13 (N.D. Ohio 2007) aff’d 539 F.3d 373 (6th Cir. 2008). To the extent Claassen asserts 14 such claims, his counterclaim will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 15 12(b)(1) and 12 U.S.C. § 1821. 16 IT IS ORDERED: 17 1. 12 U.S.C. § FDIC’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) (Doc. 8) is granted. 18 Counterclaims against FDIC or IUB-FSB, or based on acts or omissions of 19 FDIC or IUB-FSB, are dismissed. 20 Dated this 25th day of October, 2011. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 claim against the FDIC, and that jurisdiction in such instance is proper “in the district or territorial court of the United States for the district within which the depository institution’s principal place of business is located or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.” -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?