MTB Enter. v. ADC Venture 2011-2

Summarized by:

  • Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Civil Procedure
  • Date Filed: 03-23-2015
  • Case #: 13-35468
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Circuit Judge McKeown for the Court; Circuit Judges Tallman and Owens
  • Full Text Opinion

Plaintiffs suing under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, are jurisdictionally limited to bringing the claim only before the District Court for the District of Columbia, or the district court in which the depository institution’s principal place of business is located.

MTB Enterprises, Inc. originally filed suit under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”) against ADC Venture, 2011—2, LLC in the District Court of Idaho, alleging breach of contract resulting from a failed construction venture. According to the FIRREA, claimants who, like MTB Enterprises, are normally abandoned borrowers of a failed bank, must file suit in either the district in which the depository institution’s principal place of business is located, or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia under 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(6)(A)(ii). The Ninth Circuit was asked to determine if this rule is a provision for jurisdiction or a venue requirement that can be waived. Based on language that follows the statute, and the United States Supreme Court’s definition for a jurisdictional rule, the panel found that the statute is a rule, limiting jurisdiction. Because ADC Venture’s principal place of business is located in the Western District of Arkansas, the District of Idaho does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter. DISMISSED.

Advanced Search