### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60674
GLENN AL LE N ADAI R, d o i n g b u s i n e s s a s S u p e r D # 2 2 9 ; DAL LA S LI TT LE , d o i n g b u s i n e s s a s L i t t l e ' s P h a r m a c y ; S OUTHERN D ISC O U N T D R U G S O F C H A R L E S T O N , doi n g bu si n ess as Sou t h ern D i s c o unt D r ugs /Robe r t T Sa l m o n; M AY ' S PH AR M AC Y, do i ng b u s i n e s s a s Co l d wa t e r P h a r m a c y /J a m e s A May ; ANI M AL M EDI CAL CENTER OF EL LI S VI LL E, I NC; ET AL P l ai n t i f fs - A pp el l ees v. L EA S E P AR T NER S , I NC; B ANC OR P S OUT H BA NK D efen d a n ts - A p p ell a n ts FIR ST B A N KR I C H M O N D , S B , doi ng busi nes s as Fi r stFeder al Leasi ng and I nt er st at e Fi nanci al Appe l l ant

Appe alf

r o m t he U ni t e d St at e s D i s t r i c t Cour t f o r t he So ut he r n Di s t r i c t o f

M i s s i s s i ppi
B ef ore R E AV L E Y , JO L L Y , an d W IE N E R , C i rcui t Ju dg es. R E AV L E Y , C i rcui t Ju dg e: T h i s i s a n a p p ea lfrom the distri ct cou rt ord er re m a n d i n g th i s ca se to sta te c o ur t . The F eder alD e po s i t I ns ur anc e Cor po r at i o n ( " FD I C" ) –a n i nt e r ve ni ng D efen da n t – ha d rem oved t h e case t o federal court bu t w as l aterdi sm i ssed as a p a r ty . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t h e ld th a t o n c e th e F D IC w a s d is m is s e d , o n ly United States Court of A pp eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 28, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60674

By this time, the case ha d gonefrom state court tofede ral court a nd was once a gain 1 in state court. 2 sup pl em en ta l j u risd iction re m a in e d ov e r A p p e ll e e s' re m a in in g cl ai m s. Th e court sub sequ en t l y exerci sed i t s c l ai m ed d i scr et i on t o rem an d the case. W e revers e. I. T h i s c ase is a col l ect i on of cl ai m s brough t by m an y i n di vi du al ph arm aci es, ph arm aci st s, v et eri n ari an s and vet eri n ary cl i n i cs ( " P l ai n t i f fs" ) against in d ivid u a l sa les m e n a n d d iff e re n t fi n a n cia l i n stitu tion s ("D e fen d a n ts" ). Pl ai nt i f fs f i l ed t he c as e i n 1996 i n M i ss i ss i ppis t at e c our t , al l egi ng s t at e l aw f r aud, negl i genc e, br eac h of c ont r ac t , an d u su ry c l ai m s. Pl ai nt i f fs al l ege t hat D e fe n d a n t s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a P o n z is c h e me i n w h i c h D e fe n d a n t s l e a s e d R e c o mm e le c tr o n ic a d v e r tis in g b a n n e r s t o P la in tiffs , fra u d u le n tly m is r e p r e s e n te d th e ir i den t i t y as l essor s, an d cha rged usuri ou s i n t erestrat es on t h e f i n an ce c h arges. A fte r m o re t h a n eleve n ye a rs of l i ti ga ti on , th e F D IC en tered th e case in 20 07 a s a r e c e i ve r f

o r a s uc c e s s o r b ank t o o ne o f t he o r i gi nalD e fe nda nt s . The 1 FDI C t i m e l y r e m o v e d t h e c a s e t o fe d e r a ldi s t r i c t co u r t p u r s u a n t t o 1 2 U. S
. C. § 1 81 9(b) ( 2)
. I n 20 08 Pl ai nt i f fs f i l e d a m o t i o n t o di s m i s s a l lc l ai m s a ga i ns t t he F D IC
. P l a i n ti ffs also f i l ed a m oti on to rem a n d th e ca se to sta te cou rt. T h e F D IC j o i ne d i n Pl ai nt i f

fs ' m o t i o n t o di s m i s s b ut no t i n t he i r m o t i o n t o r e m and
. The di s t r i c t c o ur t gr ant e d bo t h o f Pl ai nt i f fs ' m o t i o ns . W i t h t he FD I C no l on ger a party, t h e court hel d that n o ori gi n al f ederal j u ri sdi ct i on rem ai n ed over P l ai n t i f fs' rem ai n i n g cl ai m s an d t h at i t retai n ed on l y sup pl em en t al j u ri sdi ct i on o ve r t he r e m ai ni ng c l ai m s . As t he c ou rts aw no r e as o n t o c o nt i nue e xe r c i s i ng j u ri sdi ct i on over a case com posed of w h at i t saw as predom i n an t l y st ate c l ai m s, th e cou rt stated tha t i t w ou l d ex ercise i ts discreti on to rem a n d the cas e to state cou rt. D efen da n t s app eal t h e di st ri ctcourt ' s r em an d order.N o. 08- 60674

See2 8U .S .C
. § 1 4 4 7 (d). 2 5 2 4F .3 d 6 2 7 , 6 3 1 ( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 8). 3 5 1 7U .S
. 7 0 6 , 7 1 5 , 1 1 6S
. C t. 1 7 1 2 , 1 7 2 0( 1 9 9 6). 4 549 F.3d999, 1001 (5t h Cir. 2008) (cit ing Hook v. Morris on Milling Co. , 38 F.3d 776 , 5 7 8 0( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 4))
. See id. (cit ing Hook , 3 8F .3 d at 7 8 0). 69 8 1 F .2 d 8 1 6 , 8 1 8( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 3 ). 7 3 II. A n order r em an di n g a case t o s tate c ou rti s t yp i cal l y n ot revi ew able on ap pe al
. H o w e ve r , t hi s c o ur t ha s j ur i s di ct i on ove r a r e m and o r de r w he r e t he

2 di st ri ctcourt based i t s deci si on on an af fi rm ati ve exerci se of di scr et i on rat h er th a n o n a fin d in g o f l a c k o f j u r is d ic tio n . Se e Reg a n v . St a r c r af t Ma r i ne , LLC
. 3 A d is tr ic t c o u r t's re m a n d o r d e r is fin a l fo r a p p e a l p u r p o s e s . Q u a c ke nbush v. A l l st ate I

n s. C o. 4 W h et h er a di st ri ctcourt ha s t h e d i scr et i on t o rem an d a case t o st ate c ou rt is a le g a l q u e s tio n th is co u r t r e v ie w s d e n o v o . S ee Poche v
. T ex. A i r Corps, I

n c. 5 If t he di st r i c t c our t has t he di sc r et i on t o r em and a c as e, t hi s c our t r evi ew s i ts de c i s i o n f

o r a bus e o f

di s c r e t i o n. 6 III. N on e of t h e parti es di spu t es t h at t h e di st ri ctcourt ha d j u ri sdi ct i on over th e ca se a t t h e ti m e of re m a n d
. T h e issu e is w h eth er th e cou rt w a s ob l i ga ted to
r e t a i n j ur i s d i c t i o n a nd h e a r t he c a s e orw he t he r i t h a d d i s c r e t i o n t o r e m a nd
. To
ans w e r t hi s q ue s t i o n, w e m us t de t e r m i ne w hatki nd of j ur i s di c t i o n e xi s t e d a t t he tim e o f r e m a n d
. S ee Bu c h n e rv . F DIC. 7 W h e n th e federal court ha s or i gi n al subj ect
- m att er j u ri sdi ct i on over a c l ai m , t hat j uri sdi c t i on i s " not di sc r et i onar y w i t h t he di st r i c t c our t " and " c anN o. 08- 60674

Id
. at 8 2 0 -2 1
. 8 See, e.g. , 2 8U .S .C
. §§ 1 3 6 7 (c), 1 4 4 1 (c). 9 § 1 8 1 9 (b)( 2 )(

A )- (B). 10 4 n e ith e r b e c o n fe r r e d n o r d e s tr o y e d b y th e p a r tie s ' w a iv e r o r a g r e e m e n t." 8 H ow ever, i f

a court ha s onl y sup pl em en t al j u ri sdi ct i on ov e r a cl ai m , C on gress has g r ant e d a ut ho r i t y t o a dj udi c at e t he c l ai m o r r e m and t he c l ai m b as e d o n t he
cou rt' s d i scre ti on . A p p ell a n ts a rg u e th a t th e d i stri ct co u rt h a d n o a u th ority to 9
r em and t he c as e b ec ause 12 U
. S. C
. § 1819(b) ( 2) con t i nues t o pr ovi de o r i gi nal ju r is d i cti on ov er a l lcl a i m s i n the cas e, ev en after the F D IC ' s d i sm i ssa l. A pp el l ees argue that t h e di st ri ctcourt ha d the di scr et i on t o rem an d the case purs uant t o 2 8 U
. S. C
. § 1 3 6 7 (c ) be c ause t he c our t r et ai ned onl y s uppl em ent al j uri sdi c t i on o vert he r em ai ni ng c l ai m s onc e t he FD I C w as di sm i ss ed. Al t hough th e d i stri ct cou rt ha d ve ry go od re a son s for re m a n d i n g, ou r p rece d en t su p p orts t h e posi t i on of

A pp el l an t s. I t i s und i sput ed t hat t he FD I C pr ope r l y r em ove d thi s c as e pur suant t o 1 2 U
. S
. C
. § 18 1 9 (b)( 2 ). T h i s statu te states in releva n t pa rt: (A ) I n gener al [E x ce p t in situ a tion s irr e lev a n t to th e in sta n t ca se ], a llsu its o f a ci vi lna t u re at com m on l aw or i n equ i t y t o w h i ch th e C orporati on [ F D IC ] , i n an y capa ci t y, i s a party s h all b e d eem ed to ari se un der t h e l aw s of

t h e U n i t ed S t ates. (B ) R e m o v a l [ E xcept i n si t u ati on s i rrel evan t to the i n st an t case] , t h e C orporati on m ay, w i t ho ut bo nd o r s e c ur i t y, r e m o ve any ac t i o n, s ui t , or proceedi n g f

rom a State cou rt t o t h e app ropri ate U n i t ed S t ates di s t r i c t c o ur t b e f

o r e t he e nd o f

t he 9 0- da y pe r i o d b e gi nni ng o n t he da t e t h e act i on , sui t , or proc eedi n g i s f i l ed ag ai n st t h e C orporati on ort he C or por at i on i s subs t i t ut ed as a par t y. 10N o. 08- 60674

Pub
. L
. No
. 1 0 1 -7 3 , 1 0 3S tat. 1 8 3( 1 9 8 9). 11 9 6 0F .2 d 5 1 2 , 5 1 4 -1 5( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 2 ) (e nb a n c)
. 12 See id. 13 Id
. (quot ing and cit ing H. R. R EP . N O . 1 0 1-5 4 (I) 2 9 1 , 3 1 0 -1 1 , re pr in t ed i n19 89 14 U. S. C .C .A .N
. 8 6 , 1 0 6 -0 7).

Id
. at 515 (cit ing Carrolltow n- Fa r m e rs BranchI nde p. Sch. Dist. v. Jo hns on & 15 Cravens, 1 391 1, I

nc. , 8 8 9F .2 d 5 7 1 , 5 7 2 ( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 8 9); Tr iland Ho ld in gs &C o. v . S u n b el t Serv. Cor

p. , 8 8 4F .2 d 2 0 5 , 2 0 7( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 8 9))
. Bu chn er , 9 8 1 F .2 d at 8 1 9(em ph a si s a dd ed); se e alsoF SLIC v . Mack ie , 96 2 F .2d 1 144 , 16 115 0 (5 th Cir. 1 992 ) (recogniz ing removal jurisdiction over pendent party claims pursuant to 1 2 U .S .C
. § 1 7 3 0 (k) (1 ) (r ep eale d 1 9 8 9), § 1 8 1 9 (b)(2 )' s p re de ce sso r)
. 5 C on gress en act ed § 181 9(b) ( 2) as part of t h e F i n an c i alI ns t i t ut i o ns R ef orm , R ec ove r y, and E nf

or c em ent A c t ( " FIR R E A " )
. FI R R E A i s a c om pre hensi ve 11
r egul at or y sch em e t hat C ongr es s pass ed i n re spo nse t o t he s avi ngs- and- l oan c r is is o f th e la te 1 9 8 0 s a n d e a r ly 1 9 9 0 s . Se e I n r e Mey e r l and C o. P u rsu a n t t o 12 F IR R E A , t h e F D IC succeed ed the F ederal Sa vi n gs an d L oan I n suran ce Cor po r at i o n ( " FSLI C" ) as co ns e r va t o r a n d r e c e i v e r f o r de faul t i ng fede ra l l y-i n su red f

i n a n ci a li n sti tu ti on s . F IR R E A i s sp ecif i ca l l y d esign ed to 13

" ' en h an ce and cl ari f

y en f orcem en t p ow ers of

the f i n an ci al inst i t u t i on regul ator y ag e nc i e s , ' " a nd " gr e at l y e xp and s t he FD I C' s r o l e i n r e gul at i ng and s upe r vi s i ng s u c h in s tit u tio n s ." 14 Am o ng t he m anypow ers gr ant e d t o t he FD I C by FI RR EA , " [ t ] he p o w e r . . . to in v o k e fe d e r a l ju r is d i c t i o n a n d to re m o v e fr o m s ta te co u r t is
su b stan ti a l
. " P u rsu a n t t o § 1 8 1 9 (b)( 2 )(A ), a l ls u i ts to w h i ch the F D IC i s a p a rty 15
an d allcom pon en t cla im s i n t h ose s u i t s are " co n clu siv ely presum ed to ari se u n der t h e l aw s of

t h e U n i t ed S t ates, an d thu s . . . w i t h i n t h e ori gi n al subj ect
m a tt e r ju r is d ic tio n o f th e p r o p e r fe d e r a l d is tr ic t co u r t." B e c a u s e a s u it a n d a ll 16 i t s c o m po ne nt c l ai m s a r e c o nc l us i ve l y de e m e d t o a r i s e und e r fe de r all aw onc e t he F D IC i s a party, § 18 19(b) ( 2) provi des j u ri sdi ct i on over s u i t s w h ose c au ses ofN o. 08- 60674

See Meyerlan d , 96 0 F .2d a t5 18

- 19 (comparing th e grant of jurisdictionu nder § 17 18 19 (b)(2) to that re cogniz ed in Pacific Railroad Re moval C

ases , 1 1 5 U
. S
. 1 , 5 S
. Ct. 113 (188 5), and Osbornv. Bank of t he United States , 2 2 U .S
. (9Wh eat. ) 7 3 8 , 8 2 2 ( 1 8 2 4))
.

Id
. at 5 1 9(citati ona n d fo ot n ot e om itte d)
. 189 3 5F .2 d 6 9 1 , 6 9 7( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 1 ). 19 1 7 8F .3 d 9 7 , 1 0 0 -0 1 ( 2 d C ir
. 1 9 9 9). 20 6 act i on m ay otherw i se l argel y dep en d on st ate l aw an d w h i ch m ay n ot ot h erw i se be sub j ectt o federal

- qu est i on j u ri sd icti on un der t h e gen eralfederal

- qu est i on st atute of

28 U
. S
. C
. § 1331
. U l t i m atel y, i n ena ct i n g F IR R E A , " C on gress u sed 17
ver y s t r ong l anguage t o a f f or d t he FD I C ev er y po ss i bi l i t y o f h a ving a f ede r al fo r u m w ith in th e lim its o f A r tic le II I." 18 T h e l an gu age of

§ 1819 (b) ( 2) (A ) st ates t h at al lcl ai m s i n a sui t " ari se un der t he l aws o f

t he U ni t e d St at e s " w he n t he FD I C " i s a pa r t y. " N o t hi ng i n t he st at ut e s pec i f

i c al l y addr es se s w hat happens t o a cour t ' s j uri sdi c t i on, i f anyt hi ng, w h en t h e F D IC i s di sm i ssed as a pa rt y. C on sequ en t l y, t h e ci rcui t s are spl i t on w h et h er § 181 9(b) ( 2) conti n u es t o provi de ori gi n al federal subj ectm att er j uri sdi c t i on o vera c a se af t ert he FD I C i s di sm i ss ed. O nl y t hre e c i r c ui t s have
s pe c i f i c al l y ad dr e s s e d t hi s i s s ue . I n t he m aj o r i t y ar e t he Fi f t h Ci r c ui t a nd t he Sec ond C i r c ui t , w hi c h hol d t hat § 1819(b) ( 2) c ont i nues t o pr ovi de f ede r al j u ri sd i cti on after the F D IC h a s be en d i sm i sse d from a cas e or h a s tran sferred i ts a s s e ts to a th ir d p a r ty . S ee FS L ICv. G riffin ; F D ICv. F

ou r Star Hol d i ng C o. 19 20 In t h e m i n ori t y i s t h e T h i rd Ci r c ui t , w h i ch h ol ds t h at or i gi n al federal j u ri sdi ct i on c e a s e s w ith th e d is m is s a l o f a F IR R E A fe d e r a l co r p o r a tio n a n d o n lyN o. 08- 60674

Whileno texpresslyaddressin g the issue of co ntinuin g original j uri sdictio n, the 21 Ei ghth Circuit h as revi ewed adistrict court 's remand for abu se of discretionin aca se whe re the Reso lution Tru st C orporation("RTC ") remove d the case underan anal ogous statut e b ut wa s lat er di s mi ss ed, thus im pli cit ly adop ting New Ro ck 'sh ol di n g , if n otitsr ea so nin g . See Myers v. Moore Eng 'g In c. , 42F .3d 4 52, 455(8th Cir . 1994) (ho ldin g the distric t co urt did not abu se its discretionin denying remand when the RT C had previou sly removed pursuant to12 U.S.C. § 1 441 a( l)( 1 ))
. 1 0 1 F .3 d 1 4 9 2 , 1 4 9 4 -9 5( 3 d C ir
. 1 9 9 6). 22 SeeGr if

fi n , 93 5 F .2d at 6 94-9 5. 23 Id
. 24 Id
. 25 Id
. 26 Id
. at69 5. 27 Id
. at69 6. 28 7 sup pl em en t al j u ri sdi ct i on rem ai n s. New R ock A sse t Part n ers , L
. P
. v. P ref err ed 21 E n t i ty A d van cem ents , I n c. 22 I n G riffin , t he FSLI C ent e r e d a s t at e c o ur t a c t i o n a s r e c e i ve r f o r t he p l a i n ti ff

an d su b seq u en tl y re m ov ed the cas e to fede ra lcou rt pu rsu a n t t o 1 2 U .S .C . § 1 7 3 0 (k )(1 ), a s ta tu te w h ic h w a s la te r re p e a l e d a n d re tr o a c tiv e ly sup erseded by 12 U .S .C . § 1 8 19. D u ri n g t h e pen den cy of t h e case, C on gress 23 pa ssed F IR R E A , an d the F D IC succeeded the F S L IC as recei ver. T h e di st ri ct 24
c o ur t t he n g r ant e d Gr i f f i n ' s m ot i o n t o di s m i s s i t s c o unt e r c l ai m s a ga i ns t t he FD I C, b ut t he c o ur t r e t ai ne d j ur i s di c t i o n o ve r t he c as e b e t w e e n Gri f f i n a nd t he F D IC ' s s u cces sor i n i n t erest , w h o h ad i n t ervened aga i n st G ri f f i n . Th e di st ri ct 25
c o ur t ul t i m at e l y he l d a gai n s t G r i f f i n. Gri f

f i n a ppe al e d t o t hi s c o ur t , a r gui ng 26 t hatt he fe de r alc o ur t l ac ke d j ur i s di c t i o n o nc e t he FD I C w as di s m i s s e d. 27 W e di sagreed, hol di n g t h at f ederal j u ri sdi ct i on cont i nue d t o e xi s tpur s uant to § 1 8 1 9 after th e F D IC ' s d i sm i ssa l
. T h e cou rt pro vid ed tw o ra ti on a l es for i ts 28 de c i s i o n. The c o ur t f i r s t st at e d t hat" [ t ] he po w e r t o r e m o ve i s e va l uat e d a t t heN o. 08- 60674

Id
. 29 Id
. 30 Id
. 31 Id
. 32 Id
. at 697 (cit ing D' Oe nch D uhm e & Co. v. FDIC, 3 1 5 U. S. 4 4 7 , 6 2 S
. C t. 6 7 6( 1 9 4 2 ))
. 33 Con gre ss parti ally codifi ed D'Oe n chDu h mei n1 2 U .S .C
. § 1 8 2 3 (e).

Id
. at69 6. 34 See17 8 F .3d at 1 01. 35 Id
. at99
. 36 Id
. at10 0. 37 8 t i m e o f r e m o va l
. " Al t ho ugh § 17 30 ( k) ( 1) c o nt r o l l e d w he n t he FSLI C r e m o ve d,

29 FIR R E A w as enac t ed t o " c or r ec t any possibl e j uri sdi c t i onaldef ec t s exi st i ng at t he t i m e o f

r em oval
. " Acc or di n gl y, t he e nact i ng of § 1819(b) ( 2) af

t err em oval 30 and t he FD I C' s l at e r di s m i s s alf r o m t he ca s e " c anno t de fe att hi s i nt e nt . " The 31 court t h en ci t ed fed e ra l pol i cy i n t erest s w h i ch favored rec ogn i zi n g j u ri sdi ct i on o ve r t he FD I C' s s uc c e s s o r i n i nt e r e s t . Sp e c i f i c al l y, the c o ur t r e c o gni z e d t he 32
ne e d t o pr o vi de fe de r al pr o t e c t i o n t o s uc c e s s o r s i n i nt e r e s t t o t he FD I C unde r t he D ' O ench D u h m e d oc tri n e, w h i ch i s d esign ed to " p rotect[] the F D IC an d i ts a s s ig n e e s fr o m u n r e c o r d e d s id e a g r e e m e n t s n o t r e fl e c t e d in th e b a n k 's
r ec or ds[
. ] " The c our t c onc l uded i t s di sc uss i on of the i ss ue by st at i ng, " fede r al 33 j u ri sdi ct i on i s p roper i n this case becau se accordi n g t o . . . § 181 9, t h e case ari ses u n d e r fe d e r a l la w . S in c e fe d e r a l ju r is d ic tio n e x is ts , fe d e r a l la w a p p lie s ." 34 The Se c o nd Ci r c ui t f o l l o w e d G riffin i n FourSt arHo l di ng . I n FourSt ar 35 Ho l di ng , the F D IC br o u g h t a f ore cl osu re a cti on i n f ed era lcou rt pu rsu a n t t o § 1 8 1 9 (b ) ( 2 ) (A) b u t t h e n t r a n s fe r r e d a l li t s i n t e r e s t s t o a t hi r d p a r t y . O n 36
a p p e a l, th e d e fe n d a n t s a r g u e d t h a t w ith th e tr a n s fe r o f th e F D IC ' s in te r e s t in t he c as e t o a no t her pa rt y, no fe de r alj ur i s di c t i o n r e m ai ne d. H o w e ve r , t he 37N o. 08- 60674

See id. (cit ing Gri

ff in , 93 5F. 2 d at9 6 9 ; Ne wma n -Gree n, I n c. v . Al fo nzo -Lar ra in , 49 0 38 U. S. 8 2 6 , 8 3 0 , 1 0 9S. C t. 22 1 8( 1 9 8 9); Free port -McMoRan, In c. v. K N En erg y, I nc. , 49 8 U .S. 4 2 6 , 4 2 8 , 1 1 1 S
. C t. 8 5 8( 1 9 9 1 ) (p erc u ri a m))
.

Id
. at 100- 01. Alth ou ghth e Se co n d C ircuitf ollo ws Gri

ff inin Fou r Star

Holdin g, 39 oth erSec on d C ircuitc a se s h av e n otr ec ogniz edo ri gin al j u ri sdic ti onov erp en de nt st atec laim s. See, e.g., King

v. Crosslan d Sav. Bank , 1 1 1 F .3 d 2 5 1 , 2 5 5 -5 6 (2 d C ir
. 1 9 9 7) (f in di n ge x erci se of supp le me ntal j u ri sdic ti onapp ro priateov erp en de nt partyc laim s p u rs u a nt to§ 1 3 6 7i nc a se re mov ed purs u a nt to § 1 8 1 9 (b)( 2 )) ; Mizuna, Lt d. v. Cro ssland F ed. Sav. Bank , 90 F .3d 6 50, 657 (2d C ir. 1 996) (same). However, b ecau se original j uri sdictio n pursuant to § 18 19 appli es toall ca se s ina" suit ," th es e latt erc a se s in co n si st entlyapp ly§ 1 8 1 9 (b)( 2 ).

See Ne w Roc k Ass et Partners, L.P. , 10 1 F .3d at 1 502
. 40 Id
. at14 95. Sec tion14 41a ( l)( 1 ) st ate s: 41 Notwith standingany othe r provi sionof law, anycivil actio n, suit, or pro ceeding to which the Corporation is a party shall be deemed to arise und er the laws o f the Unit ed S tates, and the Unit ed S tates district co urts shall h ave o riginal juris dic tio n over suc h actio n, s uit, or pro cee ding. 9 S econd C i rcui t hel d that j u ri sdi ct i on con t i n u ed p u rsuan t t o § 1819 , an d i t ci t ed b o th th e tim e -o f-f

i l in g d o c tr in e a n d th e fe d e r a l p o lic y ra tio n a le s s e t fo r th in G riffin a s j us t i f

i c at i o ns f

o r r e t ai n i n g j ur i s di c t i o n. Sy nt he s i z i ng t he 38 t i m e - o f

- f

i l i ng r at i o nal e w i t h a ddi t i o nalfe de r alpo l i c y c o nc e r ns , t he Se c o nd Ci r c ui t s t at e d:

" Adop t i ng a r ul e w hi c h w o ul d m ak e fe de r alj ur i s di c t i o n c o nt i nge nt o n w h o ow n ed a n i n teres t i n certa i n p rop erty a t a p a rti cu l a r tim e ' c o ul d wel lha ve t he e f fe c t o f det e r r i ng no r m albus i ne s s t r ans ac t i o ns d u ri n g th e p en d en cy of w h a t m i gh t be len gth y li ti ga ti on , ' " CIT, I n c. v. 170Wi l l ow S t ree t A ssoc . , N o. 93 Ci v. 1201 C SH , 1997 W L 528163, a t *7 (S
. D
. N
. Y
. A u g. 26 , 1997) ( quot i ng Fr e e po r t
- McMoR an , I

n c. , 498 U
. S. at428) , and c oul d al so det ert r ansac t i ons by FD I C t hat p resu m a b l y a re in th e p u b l i c i n teres t. 39 M ean w h i l e, t h e T h i rd Ci r c ui te xpress l y rej ect ed the G riffin c o ur t ' s ho l di ng t hato r i gi nalfe de r alj ur i s di c t i o n con t i n ue s pur s uantt o § 1 81 9(b) ( 2) a f t e r t he FD I C i s di s m i s s e d f

r o m a c as e . I n New R ock , t h e R esol u t i on T rust C orporati on

40 ( " R T C " ) , w h i ch C on gress creat ed u n der F IR R E A , f i l ed a case i n federal court purs uant t o 1 2 U
. S. C
. § 1441a( l) ( 1)
. Th e R T C t h en sol d i t s i n t eres ts to a 41N o. 08- 60674

Id
. 42 Id
. at 1501-02 (cit ing Mill I nvs., I nc. v. B rooks Wo olen Co. , 79 7 F. Supp. 49 (D. Me. 43 1 9 9 2 ))
. Id
. at15 03-0 4.

44 Id
. 45 Id
. at15 04. 46 SeeGr if

fi n , 9 3 5F. 2d at6 9 6( "I nsu m, fe de ral j u ri sdic ti oni s p ro pe r inthisc a se 47 because accord ing

to . . . § 1 819, th e ca seari se s u n de r fe de ral law." ) (e mp h a si s a dd ed); Fou r Star Hold ing, 178 F.3dat 101 (fo llow ing Gri ff int o h ol d th at F DI C 'sdis mi ssal "doe s notdives t the court of subj ect matter jurisdiction under Sect ion 181 9") (em ph a si s a dd ed); New Ro ck Asset Partne rs, L.P. , 101 F.3 d at15 02, 150 4 (di sagreeingwith Gri ff inan d h oldingth at supple mental j u ri sdic ti on , n oto ri gin al j u ri sdic ti on , exis te d aft erRT C 'sdis mi ssal)
. 10 pri vat e t hi r d par t y and w as di sm i ss ed f r om t he c as e. A nal ogi zi ng § 1441a( l) ( 1) 42 t o § 1819 (b) ( 2) , an d ci t i n g t o G riffin ' s a n a l ys i s, t he Thi r d C i r c ui t hel d t hat § 1 441a( l)(1 ) "p r e c lu d e s c o n tin u in g ju r is d ic tio n o v e r a n a c tio n w h e r e th e R T C is
n o l on ger a party" becau se " t h e pol i cy r e a so n s f or f ederal j u ri sdi ct i on [ u n der F IR R E A ] e n d w h e n th e F D IC o r R T C le a v e s th e ca s e ." T h e co u r t fu r th e r h e ld 43 t h at t h e t i m e- of

- f

i l i n g doctr i n e w as in suff i ci en t t o ret ai n j u ri sdi ct i on un der F IR R E A becau se t h e doct ri n e w as m ore c l osel y associ ated w i t h di versi t y cases t han f ede r al

- ques t i on c as es . M or eo ver , t he c our t not ed t hat ot her c our t s had 44 i n consi st en t l y ap pl i ed the t i m e- of-f il i n g doctr i n e i n f

ederal

- qu est i on cases . 45 U l t i m atel y, how ever, t h e New R ock c ou rt co ncl uded t hat w hi l e o r i gi nal j u ri sdi ct i on w as l acking, a di st ri ctcourt cou l d ret ai n su pp l em en t al j u ri sdi ct i on o v e r s ta te cla im s p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C
. § 1 3 6 7 (c). 46 A l lt hre e o f

t hes e c as es m ake i t c l eart hat a c our t f ol l ow i ng G riffin w ill recogni ze conti n u ed federal j u ri sdi ct i on w h e n th e F D IC re m o v e s a ca s e b u t is l at e r di s m i s s e d, and t hatt hi s j ur i s di c t i o n i s purs uan t t o 1 2 U
. S. C
. § 1819 and
n ot an y ot h er s t atute. A s G riffin i s Fi f t h C i r c ui t pre c ede nt , w e a r e b ound by 47 i t s hol di ng.N o. 08- 60674

See§ 1 8 1 9 (b)( 2 )(

A ) (" suit " shall" ari seu n de r th e laws of th e Unit edS tate s" ); 48 Meyerlan d , 96 0F .2 d at 5 1 8 -1 9 ; Bu chn er , 9 8 1 F .2 d at 8 1 9 ; se e alsoMack ie , 96 2 F .2d at 1 150 (h ol di n gth at th e te rm" suit " in§ 1 7 3 0 (k) (1 ) cov er s th e "e ntire tyo f th e civilp ro ce edin g ") ; Bro ckman v. Merab ank , 40F .3d 101 3, 101 5-16 (9th Cir. 199 4) (hol ding that th e te rm "suit" in § 1 441 a(l)(1 ) inclu des all clai ms ina case, and that th e a dditio n of RTCto the acti on "tran sf or me d th e 'e ntire suit ' into on e th at aro se u n de r fe de ral law." ) (c it ati ono mitt ed); Sprin g Garden Assoc. v. RT

C, 26F .3d 4 12, 415 -16 (3d C ir. 1 994) (same). I ndee d, as even courts th at disagree with the Fifth Circuit re cogni ze , t he disputed i ssue in the circuits r eg ardi ng § 1 819 (b)(2) is ultimatelyon e o f j ur isdictional " duration " ratherth an of j uri sdictio nal " br ea d t h." See Ne w Roc k Ass et Partners, L.P. , 1 0 1 F
. 3 dat1 4 9 9n . 4( di s t i n gu i s hi n gthe que stionbe fore it from th e h oldingin Sprin g Garden). See Bu chn er , 98 1 F .2d at 8 21. 49 SeeGr if

fi n , 93 5 F .2d at 6 96. 50 See id. ; see a lso F

our Star Hold ing, 17 8 F .3d at 1 00. 51 SeeGr if

fi n , 93 5 F .2d at 6 96. 52 See, e.g., Ban k One Tex. Nat 'l Ass'nv. Mo rrison , 26F .3d 5 44, 547(5th Cir. 1 994) 53 (citi ngthe ti me-of-filing ration aleinGriffi n as th e sol e b asis for c ontinue d j uri sdictio n despite D'Oe n chDu h meb ein gat is su e ingu aranto r' s d ef en se); Walkerv. FDIC, 97 0 F .2d 1 14, 120(5th 11 B ec a u s e fed era lj u ri sd i cti on con ti n u es in th i s ca se p u rsu a n t t o § 181 9(b) ( 2) , t h at j u ri sdi ct i on ext en ds t o a ll cl ai m s i n t h e " sui t , " regardl ess of t h ei r s t ate orf

ederal ori gi n . A s t h e di st ri ctcourt ret ai n ed ori gi n al j u ri sdi ct i on 48 over al lcl ai m s i n t h i s c ase, rem an d f or any cl ai m w as i n ap propri ate. 49 W e r e c o gni z e t hat t he pa r t y i n G riffin argui ng f orfede r alj uri sdi c t i on w as a s uc c e s s o r i n i nt e r e s t t o t he FD I C, a nd n o s uc c e s s o ri n i nt e r e s t re m ai ns i n t he i n st an t case. I n add i t i on , t h e G riffin co u rt e x p re ss ly c ited th e ex iste n ce of a 50
s uc c e s s o r i n i nt e r e s t a s pa r t o f i t s r at i o nal e f

o r c o nt i nue d j ur i s di c t i o n. 51 H ow ever, t h e G riffin court cl e arl y rel i ed on t h e t i m e- of

- f i l i n g rat i on al e f

or r e c o gni z i ng fe de r al j ur i s di c t i o n unde r i t s i nt e r pr e t at i o n o f § 1 81 9(b) ( 2) , w i t h t he fede ra lpo l i cy con cern s i t ci ted as "[f ]urth er" j u sti fi ca ti on s. M o r eo ve r, F i ft h 52 C i rcu i t case s f

oll ow i ng G riffin ex cl u sively ci te the ti m e -o f-filin g ra tio n a le a s th e ir
r e as o n f

o r r e c o gni z i ng o r i gi nalj uri sdi ct i o n, a nd t he y m ak e no m e nt i o n o f t he p o li cy concerns t h e G riffin c o ur t al s o r e l i e d o n. I n at l e as t o ne c as e , a pri or 53N o. 08- 60674

C ir
. 1 9 9 2 ); FirstGibraltar Bank, FS B v. B radley , 98F .3d 1 33 8, No. 95 -205 00, 199 6 WL 556852, at *5 (5th Cir. Sep. 10, 1996) (unpub.) (cit ing Morrison , 2 6F .3 d at 5 4 7 -4 8).

See Walker , 97 0 F .2d at 1 20. 54 Bu chn er , 981 F.2dat 820 (cit ing Ther mtro n Pro ds., In c. v. Hermansdorfer , 42 3 U .S. 55 3 3 6 , 3 4 5 , 9 6S
. C t. 5 8 4 , 5 9 0( 1 9 7 6), abrogate d on ot her gro unds by Quacken bus h , 51 7 U .S. at 7 1 4 -1 5 , 1 1 6S
. C t. at 1 7 2 0).

See Bu chn er , 98 1 F .2d at 8 21. 56B ec a u sewef

in d origin al fe de ral j uris dic ti onov erallc laim s inth e in st a nt ca se 57 pursuant to § 18 19(b)(2), we do nota d d r ess whether Appe lle es' fe derallypre empted usury clai ms also provide continuing federal jurisdiction , or w heth er the state frau d an d n egligence clai ms are "s epa rat e and inde pend ent" so as to othe rw isebe subjec t to rem and und er 28 U. S. C. § 1 4 4 1 (c). 12 F i ft h C i r c ui t panelhas r ec ogni ze d or i gi nal j uri sdi c t i on bas ed o n § 18 19(b) ( 2)
w h en n o su cces sor i n inter est to the F D IC rem ai n ed. A ccor di n gl y, a success or 54 i n i nt e r e s t t o t he FD I C i s no t ne c e s s ar y f o r o r i gi nalj ur i s di c t i o n t o c o nt i n ue p u rs u a n t to § 1 8 1 9 (b )(2). I V. W e f o l l o w t he r ul e t hat " a di s t r i c t c o ur t e xc e e ds i t s aut ho r i t y i f i t r e m and s a c as e o n gr o unds no t e xp r e s s l y pe r m i t t e d by c o nt r o l l i ng s t at ut e . " Des pi t e t he 55 F DI C' s d i s mi s s a l , a l l c l a i ms i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e c o n t i n u e t o " a r i s e u n d e r t h e l a ws of t h e U n i t ed Stat es, " pu rsuan t t o § 1819 (b) ( 2)
. Th eref ore, ori gi n al j u ri sdi ct i on rem ai n s, an d the exerci se of t h at j u ri sdi ct i on w as m an da t ory f or t h e di st ri ct c o ur t . Ac c o r di ngl y, t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ha d no di s c r e t i o n t o r e m and t he c as e a nd

56 erred i n doi n g so. 57 The Jud gm e nt o f

Rem and i s Rev ersed. The c aus e i s r e i ns t at e d i n t he fede ra lcou rt.N o. 08- 60674

13 E. GRA DY JOLLY , C i rcu i t Ju d ge , con cu rring i n the j u d gm en t: I f ul l y ap pr e c i at e t he e f f i c i e nt a nd j udi ci al l y e c o no m i c ala ppr o ac h o f t he
m aj or i t y. I am unabl e, how eve r , t o agr ee t hat ourpr ec ede nt ort he t extof § 1819 requ i res th at s t ate c l ai m s c an n ot be rem an ded w h en no p art y t o t h e case i s a successor - i n - i n t erest t o t h e F D IC an d no federal i n t erest s rem ai n i n t h e case. A l th ou gh the cou rt cl ea rl y h a s j u r is d ic tio n ov er th e ca se, i n cl u d i n g a l lstate c l ai m s , t hatfac t do e s no t i n i t s e l f m e an t hatt he c o ur t l ac ks di s c r e t i o n t o r e m and st ate c l ai m s. W h et h er t o rem an d i s a di scr et i on ary m att er s u bj ectt o t h e abu se o f d is c r e tio n s ta n d a r d
. R eg a n v . S ta r cr aft , 5 2 4 F .3d 6 2 7 , 6 3 1 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). O nce t he FD I C and i t s i nt er es t s have be en di sm i sse d , ther e i s no f ede r al
c h a r a c te r in th e s ta te cla im s . S ee FS L ICv. G riffin , 935 F
. 2d 691 , 696 ( 5th C i r. 199 1) ( j u st i f yi n g conti n u ed fe deral

- qu est i on j u ri sdi ct i on based on presence of
successor - i n - i n t erestt o F S L IC )
. T h e st atute gi ves ori gi n al j u ri sdi ct i on t o cases i n w h i ch the F D IC “i s a pa rty.” 1 2 U
. S
. C
. § 18 1 9 (b)( 2 )(A ). T h e sta tu te d oe s n ot, t hro ugh so m e f

eatof al c hem y, m ake t he c as e’ s st at e- l aw c l ai m s fede r al

- l aw cl a i m s. N or do es t h e t ex t “ i s a pa rt y” m ean t h at al lst ate- l aw cl ai m s i n an y case t o w h i ch the F D IC ev e r w as a pa rt y conti n u e t o ari se un der federal l aw af t er d is m is s a l o f a ll fe d e r a l in te r e s ts . H e r e , I c o n c u r in th e r e s u lt re a c h e d b y th e m ajo r ity b e c a u s e th e r e re m a in fe de r alus ur y c l ai m s a nd r e l at e d s t at e - l aw c l ai m s , w hi c h c anno t b e r e m and e d. Laur e nt s v . Ar c adi an Co r p. , N o. 94- 41183, 1995 W L 625394, at*2 , 69 F. 3d 535 ( 5th C i r. O ct . 4 , 1 9 9 5 ) ( set t i n g f ort h rul e t h at properl y rem oved qu est i on s of fe d e r a l la w ca n n o t b e re m a n d e d u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 4 4 1 (c )).