McCarthy

McCarthy v. Federal Deposit Insurance

Good Law
348 F.3d 1075
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 5, 2003No. 02-56357California2,660 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Rymer, J.

Ralph E. McCarthy appeals the dismissal of his action for damages for the way the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) handled a loan that he was negotiating with Superior Bank, F.S.B. after the bank failed and the FDIC was appointed as receiver. The district court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because McCarthy failed to exhaust his claims pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), 12 U.S.C. § 1821 (d)(13)(D). McCarthy argues that he was not required to exhaust because he was a debtor, not a creditor, of the bank, and because his claims arise out of post-receivership conduct of the FDIC. We agree with the district court that FIR-REA’s exhaustion requirement applies to bank debtors as well as creditors, and to claims that arise out of acts by the receiver as well as by the failed institution. Accordingly, we affirm.

*1077 I

On July 27, 2001, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) closed Superior Bank for insolvency, under-capitalization, and predatory loan practices. The FDIC, in its capacity as receiver, took possession and control of Superior’s assets. On July 30, the OTS chartered a new…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.