Clark County Bancorporation v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation et al

Filing 87

ORDER denying 77 Motion to Dismiss by Judge Benjamin H. Settle. Plaintiff to file new complaint consistent with its voluntary withdrawal of claims. The Court also requests responses to the issue of consolidation by 2/12/2016. (TG)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

5
6

7 CLARK COUNTY
BANCORPORATION,
8
9

CASE NO. C14-5816 BHS
Plaintiff,

v.

10

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
11 CORPORATION, and FEDERAL
DEPOSIT INSURANCE
12 CORPORATION-RECEIVER,

ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS AND REQUESTING
RESPONSES

Defendants.

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Federal Deposit Insurance

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Corporation-Receiver’s (“FDIC-R”) motion to dismiss third amended complaint (Dkt.
77).
On August 12, 2015, Plaintiff Clark County Bankcorporation (“CCB”) filed a
third amended complaint. Dkt. 77. On October 22, 2015, FDIC-R filed the instant
motion to dismiss. Dkt. 77. On November 25, 2015, CCB responded and voluntarily
withdrew its second and third claims for relief. Dkt. 83. On December 17, 2015, FDICR replied. Dkt. 86.

ORDER - 1

1

In this case, CCB’s complaint is virtually identical to its complaint in what FDIC-

2 R refers to as the “Companion Litigation,” which is Clark County Bancorporation v.
3 FDIC, Cause No. 3:14-cv-05852BHS (W.D. Wash). There are some minor differences
4 such as footnote material included in the main paragraphs instead of in footnotes, but
5 otherwise the complaints contain almost identical allegations. On November 23, 2015,
6 the Court denied FDIC-R’s motion to dismiss CCB’s breach of contract claim in the
7 Companion Litigation stating that “FDIC-R has sufficient notice of the claim against it
8 and it is time to move to the merits of the parties’ dispute.” Id., Dkt. 62. Likewise, it is
9 time to move to the interpretation and substance of the disputed contract and FDIC-R
10 fails to provide any reason to conclude otherwise. Therefore, the Court DENIES FDIC11 R’s motion to dismiss, and CCB shall file a new complaint consistent with its voluntary
12 withdrawal of claims.
13

Furthermore, the Court requests responses to the issue of consolidation with the

14 Companion Litigation. In order to conserve the Court and the parties’ resources, it seems
15 readily evident that almost identical complaints should be prosecuted in a consolidated
16 action. Responses may be filed no later than February 12, 2016.
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated this 4th day of February, 2016.

A

19
20

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

21
22

ORDER - 2