Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing plaintiff-bank’s claim alleging that defendant issued erroneous CARPELS rating that exposed plaintiff to extra oversight and caused it to pay increased deposit insurance. At some point, plaintiff merged into non-bank enterprise and sought under Administrative Procedure Act (APA) refund of increased insurance payments. Yet, plaintiff could not assert said claim under APA, where: (1) APA establishes right of review only where there is no other adequate remedy in court; and (2) plaintiff asserted that it had such remedy under 12 USC section 1817(e)(1). Moreover, plaintiff could only use section 1817(e)(1) as source of financial payout if Tucker Act applied and could only assert said action in Ct. of Federal Claims. Also, plaintiff forfeited any claim under either section 1817(e)(1) or 1819(a) because plaintiff failed to raise section 1819(a) claim in Dist. Ct. and failed to alert Dist. Ct. to potential relief under section 1817(e)(1) until after Dist. Ct. had dismissed case.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Banking