Paatalo v. Washington Mutual Bank et al

Filing 91

ORDER: Granting FDIC's Motion for Summary Judgment 78 . Signed on 04/27/2011 by Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken. (lg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Civ. No. 08-6216-AA

WILLIAM JOHN PAATALO,

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK,
EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., and
TRANS UNION LLC,
Defendants.
AIKEN,Chief Judge:
Plaintiff brought suit against defendants alleging violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act,

15 U.S.C.

§

1681, and the Real

Estate Settlement Procedures Act,

12 U.S.C.

§

2601.

Plaintiff's

claims against defendants Experian Information Solutions and Trans
Union LLC have been resolved and only plaintiff's claims against
Washington Mutual Bank (Washington Mutual)
On

1

September

25,

2008,

- OPINION AND ORDER

the

Office

remain.
of

Thrift

Supervision

declared Washington Mutual

insolvent

and appointed the

Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as its Receiver pursuant to 12
U.S.C.

1921(c).

§

The FDIC now moves for summary judgment, arguing

that plaintiff's claims against Washington Mutual are barred for
failure

to

file

a

timely administrative claim.

The motion

is

granted.
RELEVANT FACTS
After

its

Publication
Mutual,

appointment

Notice

whi~h

to

as

Receiver,

Creditors

and

the

FDIC

Depositors

published

of

a

Washington

included a notice to claimants that they must file

any claim against Washington Mutual with the FDIC prior to December
30, 2008.
On

November

17,

2008,

counsel

for

the

FDIC

contacted

plaintiff's attorneys regarding proposed motions to substitute the
FDIC as a party and to stay the proceedings pending exhaustion of
the statutorily-mandated administrative claims process.
counsel

also

provided

plaintiff's

counsel

with

a

FDIC's
link

information regarding the administrative claims process.

to

Adams

Declo, Ex. A.
On November 17, 2008, plaintiff's counsel responded and stated
no

obj ection

to

the

substitution of

FDIC but

raised questions

regarding the scope and extent of the stay.
On December 5, 2008, counsel for the FDIC emailed plaintiff's
counsel and asked whether information had been provided to obtain

2

- OPINION AND ORDER

a claim form that plaintiff must s
Ex. C, p. 1.
On

Plainti

December

t to

's counsel

31,

2008

at

FDIC.

Adams Decl.,

ly did not respond.
5:59

p.m.,

plaintiff's

counsel

forwarded to FDIC's counsel a $2,000,000 claim against Washington
Mutual.

The cover

Dallas,

Texas.

document.

r of

aim was addressed to the FDIC in

The cIa

was

attached to an email as

counsel by email that
a

. pdf

Adams Decl., Ex. C, p. 1.
FDIC informed plaintiff's

On January 1, 2009, counsel

file

a

iff "should do whatever is necessary to

claim" as the FDIC's counsel "has no responsibility

filing claims."

De

suggested that t
the FDIC.

., Ex. 0, p. 1.

The FDIC's counsel also

was an extension of time to file claims with

Apparently, no s

On January 5,

2009,

extension had been granted.
aintiff's counsel again e-mailed

FDIC's counsel a copy of the letter forwarded on December 31, 2008.
On

January 13,

2009,

aintiff's

claim and purport
letter,

counsel

sent

plaintiff's

documents to the FDIC.

In a

plaintiff's counsel stated that such documents had

provided to
plaintiff's
documents

F'DIC's

counsel "in a

counsel
rectly to

that previously

been
FDIC.
not

timely manner,

instructed

II

and t

to

time as we now

- OPINION AND ORDER

t

Plaintiff's counsel also assert

have

"the authority to contact

directly, but are now [submitting] these documents to you at

3

r

authority to do so."

you
s

Adams Decl., Ex. C,

p. 2.

FDIC received t
On

23,

se documents on

s or evidence.

is currently

filed its motion,
notice rega

er the

pro se.

the courtp

FDIC

required

plaintiff with

summary j

Civil

2009.

iff's claim

a

FDIC disallowed

2009,

for failure to provide support
Pint

20,

standards and Federal Rule of

56 requirements.

The

FDIC

failure 'to
December 30,

moves

fi

an

2008,

for

summa

judgment

administrat

as

Rece

r

was

17, 2008, pr

s court of
FDIC's
iff.
of

Nonetheless, plaintiff did

of claim to the FD C until January 2009.

notice of an administrat
2008,

claims

claim,

To

FDIC's counsel with

such notice was not provided

after the Cla
st

of

claims process on November

the extent plaintiff's counsel provided

iff's

as

FDIC's appointment

t

Claims Bar Date.

until December 31,

FDIC

provided to pla

the adrninistrat

not submit any t

the

, unless notice of

not t

Plaintiff's counsel was informed
rmation

with

the

the "Claims Bar Date," divests

jurisdiction over plaintiff's cla
appointment

claim

on

Washington

Bar Date.
Mutual

Therefore,
are

45

barred.

F.3d 1278,

1284-86 (9th Cir. 1994).
Plai~tiff

4

nonethe

ss

OPINION AND ORDER

ains that a quest

of fact exists

regarding the t

liness of

I, 2009 that an extension of

FDIC's counsel's suggestion on Janua
time

had

been

, presents no

granted

to

submit

claims.

However,

dence that any extension was granted.

statement was made a

pIa

Further, t

iff
s

er the Claims Bar Date and after plaintiff's

counsel had\ forwarded noti

claim to FDIC's

of an administrat

counsel on December 31, 2008.
counsel could have relied on
fail

claim g

s administrat

Therefore, neither

intiff nor his

statement to their detriment in

to file a timely administrat

cIa

CONCLUSION
The FDIC's IYlot

for Summary Judgment

. 78) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated

sat-

y of April, 2011.

Ann Aiken

United States
strict Judge

5

- OPINION AND ORDER