N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M ER ITAGE HOM ES OF NEVADA, INC . f/k/a

M TH-HOM E S NEVADA, INC ., Pla i ntiff-Appe lla nt,
v. FNB N-R ESC ON I, LLC ; STEAR NS B ANK, N.A.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-15394 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-01425-R FB
PAL
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da R ic ha rd F. B oulwa

re II, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d ** Fe brua

ry 17, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER , FUENTES *** , a nd R AW LINSON, C i rc uit Judge s .



# F IL ED
MAY02 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.
** The pa

ne l una nim o usly c onc l ude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

*** The Honora

ble Julio M . Fue n te s, Se nior C irc uit Judge for the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Third C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion.Appe lla nt M e rita ge Hom e s of Ne va da file d a c o m pla int a ga inst Appe lle e s FNB N-R ESC ON I a

nd Ste arns B ank se e king da m a ge s on a

n unfulfille d c ontra c tua l prom ise b y

First Na tiona l B ank whose a s se ts a re now owne d by

RESC ON I a

nd Ste a rns B ank. The Distric t C ourt dismisse d the e ntire c om pla int, finding, inte r alia , tha t M e rita ge ’ s c la im s a

re jurisdic tiona lly ba

rre d by the Fina nc ia l Institutions R e form , R e c ove ry

and Enforc e m e nt Ac t

of 1989 (“ FIRR EA” or “ the Ac t” ). W e have jurisdic tion ove r this a ppe a l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we re vie w denov o a dism issa l for la c k of subje c t m a tte r jurisdic tion. Raine ro v . Arc h on C orp. , 844 F.3d 832, 836 (9th C ir. 2016)

. B e c a use M e rita ge ha s a lre a dy

pre va ile d be fore this C ourt, se e king re lie f on the sa m e c ontra c t, a ga inst theFe de ra l De posit Insura nc e C orporation (“ FDIC ” ) a c ting a s re c e ive r for First Na tiona l B ank, we a ffirm
. C ongre ss e na c t e d FIRR EA, c odifie d at 12 U.S.C . § 1811, e t se q. , to m ana ge the s avings a

nd loa n c risis in the

late 1980s. Rundgre n v . W ash. Mut. Bank

, FA , 760 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th C ir. 2014). One of the wa y s the la w sought to ensure fa ir
and orde rly

distribution of a sse t s is to im pose one uniform se t of c la im proc e dure s for a l l c re ditors with c la im s a g a inst institutions in liquida tion. Id. At the sa

m e tim e , the Ac t disa l lows judic ia l re vie w of “ a ny c la im re lat ing to a

ny a c t or
om i ssion of suc h institution or the C orporation a s re c e ive r” subm itte d outsideof

2the p re sc ribe d c l a im s proc e dure s. 12 U.S.C . § 1821(d)(13)(D)(ii); se e also Be nson

v . J PMorgan C

haseBank

, N .A. , 673 F.3d 1207, 1211 (9th C ir. 2012). In Ja nua ry 2009, shortly

a fte r First Na

tiona l B ank wa s put into re c e ive rship, M e rita ge m a de its first a

tte m pt to re c ove r $436,357 for work perform e d unde r a
c onstruc tion a g re e m e nt to m ake im prove m e nts upon a

pa rc e l of la nd a borrowe r purc ha se d with a

loa n from First Na tiona l B a nk. It dutifully

followe d the c la im s proc e d ure se t out in FIR

RE A a nd subm itte d

to FDIC a

tim e ly Proof of C la i m . The FDIC initia lly disa llowe d the c la im be c a use M e rita ge fa ile d to “provide proof of a gua ran te e or prom ise to fulfill the obliga tions of theborrowe r.” ER 736. M e rita g e tim e ly file d a pe tition for judic i a l de te rm ination of thec la im in the Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne va da . Following the FDIC ’ s fa ilure to a

ppe ar, the c o urt
awarde d M e rita ge the full a m ount inc luding pre -judgm e nt a nd post-judgme nt inte re s t a n d attorne y ’ s fe e s and c osts. TheFDIC issue d a R e c e ive r’ s C e rtific ate in the a m ount of $680,300, whic h the Distric t C ourt, ove r M e rita ge ’ s obje c tions,
a c c e pte d a s full sa tisfa c tion of thejudgm e nt. M e rita g e , unha

ppy to wa it in line

with othe r c la im a

n ts of First Na

tiona l B ank, a ppe a l e d the de c ision to this c ourt. W e uphe ld the Distric t C ourt’ s de c ision to pe rm it the FDIC to sa

t isfy the judgm e nt with a

R e c e i ve r’ s C e rtific ate . Me ritage Home s of N e v ada v

. FDIC , 753 F.3d 819, 824-25 (9th C ir. 2014). While tha t
a ppe a l wa s pe nding, M e rita g e file d the c om pla int a t issue he re a g a i nst FNB N3R ESC ON I, LLC , whic h, a c c ording to the Distric t C o urt opinion, is a n e ntity
c re ate d by

the FDIC to hold c e rta in a s se ts of the First Na tiona l B ank for the purpose s of liquida

tion, a n d Ste arns B ank, whic h purc ha se d a be ne fic ia l owne rship in R ESC ON I, in a

se c ond bid to re c ove r for work pe rform e d unde r the
c onstruc tion a g re e m e nt. This tim e , M e rita ge trie d to c irc um ve nt the jurisdic t ion ba

r in 12 U.S.C . § 1821(d)(13)(D)(ii), whic h a pplie s e v e n whe n the c la im s a re a sse rte d a ga inst the purc ha sing institution, instea d of the fa i le d institution or the FDIC , a s long a s the
c la im s “ re late to a

ny a c t or om i ssion” of the fa ile d institution or the FDIC
. Be nson , 673 F.3d a

t 1212. To do so, M e rita ge now a rgue s tha t it wa s RESC ON I, not First Na

tiona l B ank, tha

t inc urre d the obliga

tion to pa y unde r the re le va

nt
a gre e m e nts by fore c losing upon the im prove d la nd in M ay

2011. M e rita g e is judic ia lly

e stoppe d from

now a sse rting this position, howe ve r, be c a use it is c le a

rly inc onsiste nt with its prior position tha t M e rita ge wa s owe d the
sam e m one y from

First Na tiona l B ank a s e a

rly a s June 2008. “ Judic i a l e stoppe l is
an e q uita b le doc trine that pre c lude s a pa rty from ga ining a n a dva nta ge by a sse rting
one position, a

n d the n late r se e king a

n a dva nta ge by ta king a c le a rly inc onsiste nt position.” Hamilton v . State Farm Fire

& C a s. C o . , 270 F.3d 778, 782 (9th C ir. 2001). Ha

ving a lre a d

y re c e ive d a

judgm e n t by

pe rsua ding thefirst distric t c ourt that it wa s owe d m one y

for its c onstruc tion work sinc e June 2008, M e rita ge m ay

4not se e k a

se c ond judgm e nt for the sa m e c onstruc tion work a ga inst R ESC ON I a

n d Ste a rns B ank by a sse rting the c ontra ry position tha

t the obliga

tion to pa y wa s not trigge re d until R

E SC O N I’ s fore c losure of the la n d pa rc e l. To pe rm it M e rita ge to do so would not only re quire us to a c c e pt tha t the prior c ourt wa s m isle d, but would a lso giveM e rita ge the im pe rm issible a dva

nta ge of be ing pa id first be fore
any othe r c re d itors with val id c la im s c an be pa id. It would, in e ffe c t, disrupt the FDIC ’ s sta

tutory duty t o “ e n sure tha

t the a sse ts of a

fa ile d institution a

re distribute d fa irly

and prom

ptly am ong thosewith va lid c l a im s a ga inst the institution, a

n d to e xpe ditiously

wind up thea ffa irs of fa ile d ba nks.” Be nson , 673 F.3d at 1211. Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm

the Distric t C o urt’ s dism issa l of the c om p la int for la c k of jurisdic tion.

AFFIRM E D
.

5