Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-04025/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-04025-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

1

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MARIO FEDERICI, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JESSE MONROY, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

AND RELATED THIRD PARTY CLAIMS

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 09-4025 PVT

ORDER SOLICITING

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

On January 12, 2010, the parties appeared before Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull for

hearing on the motion to dismiss brought by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”).1

Based on the briefs and arguments presented,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, no later than January 22, 2010, the parties shall file

simultaneous supplemental briefs concerning the following issues:

1. Whether the “notice” referred to in 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(5)(C)(ii)(I) is

actual notice or constructive notice (see, e.g., In re Scott, 157 B.R.

297, 308-320 (Bankr.W.D.Tex. 1993), withdrawn to facilitate

settlement, 162 B.R. 1004 (Bankr.W.D.Tex. 1994) (“The statute also

insulates those not having such ‘actual notice’ from the binding effect

of a final disallowance, in subsection (d)(5)(C)(ii) (the provision

Case 5:09-cv-04025-PVT Document 32 Filed 01/12/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER, page 2

relieving a claimant from final disallowance if notice is not received in

time).”);

2. Whether the Monroy’s alleged cause of action matured before or after

the claims bar date set by the FDIC (see, e.g., City of Vista v. Robert

Thomas Securities, Inc., 84 Cal.App.4th 882, 886-87 (2000) (cause of

action for which damages is a required element does not mature until

damages have been sustained), citing United States Liab. Ins. Co. v.

Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. 1 Cal.3d 586, 597 (1970); and

3. Assuming the Monroy’s alleged cause of action did not mature until

after the claims bar date, whether construing 12 U.S.C. section

1821(d)(13)(D) to divest the court of jurisdiction over the Monroy’s

cause of action would violate their due process rights (see, e.g.,

National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. City Sav., F.S.B., 28

F.3d 376, n. 16 (3 Cir. 1994). rd

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, absent further order of the court, after filing of the

supplemental briefs the motion will be deemed submitted without further oral argument.

Dated: 1/12/10

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:09-cv-04025-PVT Document 32 Filed 01/12/10 Page 2 of 2