Roman- Lanzo et al v. insurance corp-r et al

Filing 15

ORDER: Granting 11 "The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Complaint." Judgment will be entered accordingly. This case is now closed for statistical purposes. Signed by Judge Pedro A. Delgado-Hernandez on 6/30/2016. (ADS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
ERNESTO ROMAN LANZO, et al.
PLAINTIFFS.
v.

CIVIL NO. 15-2309 (PAD)

JUAN BENABE GUZMAN, JOSEFINA
TORRENS CASTRO, et al.
DEFENDANTS.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Delgado-Hernández, District Judge.
On February 22, 2013, plaintiffs initiated this action for nullity of sale and damages in the
Fajardo Part of the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance (Docket No. 9, Exh.1). On February 27,
2015, while the action was pending, the Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions of
Puerto Rico closed Doral Bank and appointed the FDIC as Doral Bank’s receiver.
On September 21, 2015, the FDIC-R removed the action to this court under 12 U.S.C.
§ 1819(b)(2)(B) (Docket No. 1 at p. 1). Before the court is “The Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint” (Docket No. 24). The plaintiffs
opposed (Docket No. 12) and the defendants replied (Docket No. 13). For the reasons explained
below, the FDIC-R’s motion is GRANTED and the case DISMISSED.
I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), a party may seek dismissal of an action for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. When a district court considers a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, it must credit
the plaintiff’s well-pled factual allegations and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s
favor. See, Merlonghi v. United States, 620 F.3d 50, 54 (1st Cir. 2010)(citing Valentín v. Hosp.

Roman Lanzo, et al. v. FDIC
Civil No. 15-2309 (PAD)
Memorandum and Order
Page 2

Bella Vista, 254 F.3d 358, 363 (1st Cir. 2001). If it appears to the court at any time that subject
matter jurisdiction is lacking, it must dismiss the action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3); McCulloch v.
Vélez, 364 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2004).
A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the court lacks
the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it. Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund,
81 F.3d 1182, 1187 (2d Cir. 1996); Prestige Capital Corp. v. Pipeliners of Puerto Rico, Inc., 849
F.Supp.2d 240 (D.P.R. 2012). The court may consider extrinsic materials in the process of
evaluating a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1). Dynamic Image Technologies, Inc. v. U.S.,
221 F.3d 34, 37 (1st Cir. 2000).
II. DISCUSSION
The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (“FIRREA”) provides
that when the FDIC is acting as a conservator or receiver, it succeeds the insured depository
institution as to all of its rights, titles, powers, privileges and assets. 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(2)(A)(i).
Additionally, it establishes a mandatory administrative claims process, which must be exhausted
by every claimant seeking payment from the assets of the affected institution. 12 U.S.C.
§ 1821(d)(13)(D). The administrative claims process, set forth in 12 U.S.C. §§ 1821(d)(3)-(13),
requires that all claims be submitted to the FDIC by a date established by the receiver. Rodríguez
v. F.D.I.C., No. 10-1656, 2011 WL 4529929, at *3 (D.P.R. September 27, 2011). Compliance
with and exhaustion of the administrative procedure is mandatory. See, Marquis v. F.D.I.C., 965
F.2d 1148, 1151 (1st Cir. 1992)(so stating).
With this background, the FDIC-R published notice to potential creditors and depositors
of Doral in various local newspapers, informing that Doral had been closed, and any claim against
the FDIC-R had to be filed with that institution no later than June 4, 2015 (Docket No. 11 at p. 2).

Roman Lanzo, et al. v. FDIC
Civil No. 15-2309 (PAD)
Memorandum and Order
Page 3

The FDIC-R also sent plaintiffs a letter indicating the bar date, and informing them that the
submission deadline was May 1, 2015 (Docket No. 11, Exh. 1). The letter included instructions on
how to complete the Proof of Claim Form; provided the address to which the document should be
sent; and forewarned that failure to file any such claim before the Claims Bar Date would result in
the final disallowance of the claim.
Plaintiffs, however, failed to submit the corresponding claims with the FDIC-R, such that
they failed to comply with the administrative procedure set in 12 U.S.C. § 1821 (Docket No. 11 at
p. 3).1 By extension, the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain their claims against
the FDIC-R. See, Simon v. F.D.I.C., 48 F.3d 53, 56 (1st Cir. 1995) (holding that “[f]ailure to
comply with the [administrative claims review process] deprives the courts of subject matter
jurisdiction over any claim to assets of the failed financial institution”).
III.

CONCLUSION

In view of the foregoing, the FDIC-R’s motion is GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED.
Judgment shall be entered accordingly.
SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 30th day of June, 2016.
S/Pedro A. Delgado-Hernández
PEDRO A. DELGADO-HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge

1

In their opposition, plaintiffs did not contest that they failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Rather, they argued that this
case should be remanded to state court (Docket No. 12). However, the court already considered this matter when it denied the
plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Docket No. 7). See, Memorandum and Order of June 23, 2016 (Docket No. 14).