Feigel

Feigel v. Federal Deposit Insurance

Good Law
935 F. Supp. 1090·1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19570
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaMay 22, 1996Civil No. 95-1934-BTM(AJB)California4,997 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Moskowitz, J.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The plaintiffs, four former directors of Home Federal Savings & Loan Association, subsequently HomeFed Bank, F.S.B. (“HomeFed”), contend that they are entitled to retirement benefits pursuant to a Director’s Retirement Plan instituted by HomeFed in 1987. On July 6, 1992 the RTC was appointed receiver for Ho-meFed. The FDIC has since replaced the RTC and asserts that the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims because the plaintiffs failed to properly exhaust their administrative remedies pursuant to the Financial Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, Pub.L. No. 101-73, 103 Stat. 548 (August 9, 1989) (“FIRREA”), 12 U.S.C. §§ 1821 (d)(5)-(6). A hearing on the cross-motions for summary judgment was held on May 10,1996.

BACKGROUND

On November 24, 1987, HomeFed approved and adopted a Director’s Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) specifically covering current and future non-employee directors joining HomeFed’s Board of Directors. (Complaint at ¶5).…

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.