[DO N OT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 80 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 7 :1 1- cv -0 00 44 -HL JAY GREGORY BRANCH, SR ., TERRI ROBER TS BRANCH, Pl ai nt iff s- App el le es ,

ve rs us FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as rece iv er fo r Tift on Ban ki ng Co m pa ny,
Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 11 -1 38 06 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 7 :1 1- cv -0 00 45 -HL

TIMOTHY V. BRANCH, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

vers us Case: 11-13805 Date Filed: 07/25/2012 Page: 1 of 3FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,

as rece iv er fo r Tift on Ban ki ng Co m pa ny,
In te res te d P art y -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ju ly 25, 2 01 2)
Befo re J ORDAN and FAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d EDENFIELD, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. *

PER CURI AM:
On Nov em

be r 12 , 20 10 , th e Geo r g i a D e p a rtment of Ban ki ng an d Fi na nc e
cl os ed Tift on Ban ki ng Co m pa ny an d ap po in te d th e FDIC as rece iv er of th e ba nk

. Two m on th s aft er Tift on cl os ed , on Ja nu ary 13 , 20 11 , th e pl ai nt iff s fil ed su it ag ai ns t
Tift on in Geo rg ia st a t e c o u r t

. On Mar ch 28 , 20 11 , th e FDIC fil ed a m ot io n to

su bs ti tu te it se lf as a pa rty fo r Tift on in th e st at e co ur t acti on
. The FDIC att ach ed to
it s m ot io n co pi es of th e do cu m en ts ap po in ti ng it as Tift on ’s rece iv er. Befo re th e st at e

co ur t co ul d ru l e on th e m ot io n, th e FDIC fil ed a no ti ce of rem ov al in th e Uni te d

Honora ble B . Avant Ede nfield, United States District Judge f or the Southern District of * Geor g ia, sitting by

desig nation.
2 Case: 11-13805 Date Filed: 07/25/2012 Page: 2 of 3St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a.

The pl ai nt iff

s fil ed a m ot io n to rem an d th e cas e to st at e co ur t, arg ui ng th at th e
di st ric t co ur t la ck ed su bjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on ov er th e cas e be cau se th e st at e co ur t
ha d no t en te red an or de r su bs ti tu ti ng th e FDIC as a pa rty. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d
th e pl ai nt iff

s’ m ot io n. It de te rm in ed th at si nc e th e FDIC ha d no t be en su bs ti tu te d in
th e m an ne r req ui red by Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Proc ed ur e 25 (c), it was no t a pa rty fo r
th e pu rp os es of 12 U.S.C. § 18 19 (b )(2 )(B) , th e FDIC rem ov al pr ov is io n. The FDIC

ap pe al s t he di st ric t co ur t’s re m an d o rd er.
W e rece nt ly ad dr es se d t he is su es rai se d in th is ap pe al in FDIC v. No rt h
Sa va nn ah Pro

pe rt ie s, LLC , — F.3 d— , 20 12 W L 28 49 48 8 (1 1t h Ci r. Ju ly 12 , 20 12 ).
W e he ld th at th e FDIC be co m es a pa rty fo r th e pu rp os es of rem ov al un de r 12 U.S.C. § 18 19 (b )(2 )(B) on ce it is ap po in te d rece iv er an d fil es a no ti ce of su bs ti t u t i o n ; th e

st at e co ur t do es no t ha ve to en te r an or de r of su bs ti tu ti on fo r su bjec t-mat te r juri sd ic ti on to ex is t. In li gh t of ou r de ci si on in No rt h Sa va nn ah Pro pe rt ie s , we va cat e
th e di st ric t co ur t’s rem an d or de r. And be cau se we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t ha d

su bjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on ov er th is cas e, we al so va cat e th e di s t ric t co ur t’s or de r

va cat in g i ts pri or ord er o f su bs ti tu ti on of t he FDIC.
VACATED.

3 Case: 11-13805 Date Filed: 07/25/2012 Page: 3 of 3