Opinion ID: 745288
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: additional fcua claims

Text: 32 We briefly consider whether any of Bruns' claims against the non-federal defendants provides a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.
Claim Against HAFCU 33 Bruns has not explicitly pled that his claim arises under the FCUA's whistleblower provision, 12 U.S.C. § 1790b. Nor does he allege that he provided any information to the NCUA or the Attorney General and that HAFCU retaliated against him as a result. Furthermore, Bruns did not follow the procedures mandated in section 1790b(b) for pursuing a whistleblower claim against HAFCU. Section 1790b therefore does not support federal jurisdiction over Bruns' claims against HAFCU or the other credit union defendants.
34 Bruns argues that his complaint states a claim against the non-federal defendants for violating the HAFCU by-laws. Under the FCUA, the NCUA must promulgate and HAFCU must adopt by-laws. See 12 U.S.C. § 1758. The NCUA has promulgated standard-form by-laws for federally-insured credit unions. 12 C.F.R. § 701.2(a)-(d)(1). 35 However, the FCUA does not expressly provide a private right of action for aggrieved employees challenging a violation of the bylaws. Montford v. Robins Fed. Credit Union, 691 F.Supp. 347, 351, 352 (M.D.Ga.1988). Nor does the FCUA contain an implied private right of action to bring such a claim. Id. In Montford, the court carefully examined the language and history of the FCUA and concluded that the [NCUA] Board is the proper body to hear complaints concerning the alleged violation of credit union bylaws. Id. at 355. The court reasoned that in providing an extensive remedial scheme in the FCUA, Congress intended to give the NCUA, rather than the federal courts, the authority and power to resolve disputes between credit unions and their terminated employees. Id. Bruns therefore has no claim supporting federal jurisdiction based on HAFCU's alleged violation of its by-laws.