Farnick v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.

Dist. Ct. lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs’ action against defendant-insolvent bank alleging that said bank engaged in deception by failing to base their interest rates on certain index rate as promised by said bank, where record showed that FDIC was substituted as party defendant after it had been appointed receiver for insolvent bank, and where FDIC removed action to federal court under section 1819(b)(2)(A) of FIRREA. Under section 1821(d)(3)(d)(13) of FIRREA, FDIC has statutory authority to administer claims against insolvent bank for which it has been appointed receiver, and courts lack jurisdiction to consider such claims where, as here, plaintiffs failed to previously present their claim to FDIC. Ct. rejected plaintiffs’ claim that real defendant was successor bank to insolvent bank, after noting that allegations of misconduct in complaint were solely against insolvent bank.