National Credit Union Administration Board v. Nadlan Corteen Place Apartments, LLC et al

Filing 97

ORDER denying 87 Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 4/4/2014. (JU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION
ADMINISTRATION BOARD,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:13-cv-673-Orl-31GJK

NADLAN CORTEEN PLACE
APARTMENTS, LLC, GERSHON
SCHUSTERMAN, BARRY KOHN,
PERKINS & MARIE CALLENDERS,
LLC, S & A PROPERTIES, CORP.,
STEAK & ALE OF FLORIDA, INC and S
& A RESTAURANT CORP.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Nadlan Corteen Place Apartments, LLC,
Gershon Shusterman, and Barry Kohn’s (collectively “Nadlan Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 87) and Plaintiff National Credit Union
Administration Board’s (“NCUAB”) response in opposition (Doc. 93).
28 U.S.C. § 1354 provides a broad grant of federal jurisdiction over all civil actions
commenced by the United States or an agency thereof. Clause (a)(2) of 12 U.S.C. § 1789 expands
that jurisdiction to include all civil actions in which the NCUAB is a party. See Nat'l Credit Union
Admin. Bd. v. Regine, 749 F. Supp. 401, 410 (D.R.I. 1990) (“Section 1789(a)(2) grants federal
jurisdiction to all civil suits to which NCUA is a party . . . .”); Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Ticktin,
490 U.S. 82, 86 (1989) (analyzing nearly identical language in 12 U.S.C. § 1730 and finding that
language expands the federal court’s jurisdiction beyond the bounds of § 1345). Thus when the

NCUAB is sued, § 1789 gives it the right to remove the case to federal court. But this right of
removal is limited by the proviso that excludes cases in which “the Board is a party in its capacity
as liquidating agent of a State-chartered credit union and which involves only the rights or
obligations of members, creditors, and such State credit union under State law shall not be deemed
to arise under the laws of the United States.” 12 U.S.C. § 1789(a)(2). Here that proviso has no
application because the NCUAB commenced this action. This Court, therefore, has jurisdiction over
this case and the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 87) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on April 4, 2014.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party

-2-