Opinion ID: 2682323
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the dismissal of plaintiffs‘ lawsuit

Text: DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS UNDER THE UNITED STATES OR UTAH CONSTITUTION ¶ 40 Plaintiffs argue that the dismissal of their complaint denied them due process of law under both the United States and Utah Constitution. Plaintiffs claim that the FDIC sought to ―ambush‖ them by ―awaiting expiration of the administrative deadline‖ in order to dispose of their claim ―without consideration of the merits,‖ and deprive them of their opportunity to be heard. ¶ 41 The Due Process Clause prevents ―denying potential litigants use of established adjudicatory procedures, when such an action would be the equivalent of denying them an opportunity to be heard upon their claimed right[s].‖93 Essentially, due process requires ―notice and an opportunity to be heard.‖94 FIRREA clearly spells out when and how judicial review is available.95 It expressly provides for de novo judicial review, but only after exhaustion of the administrative procedures.96 ―Since the language of the statute expressly provides for judicial review after exhaustion of the administrative procedures, [Plaintiffs] cannot prevail on [their] claim that FIRREA‘s administrative procedures deny [them] due process by making judicial review unavailable,‖ because it does not.97 93Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. City Sav., F.S.B., 28 F.3d 376, 394 (3d Cir. 1994) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). 94 Utah Cnty. v. Ivie, 2006 UT 33, ¶ 22, 137 P.3d 797. 95 Bueford v. Resolution Trust Corp., 991 F.2d 481, 486 (8th Cir 1993). 96 See Rosa v. Resolution Trust Corp., 938 F.2d 383, 391–92 (3d Cir. 1991); Bueford, 991 F.2d at 486; Resolution Trust Corp. v. Shoreview Builders, Inc., 599 A.2d 1291, 1294 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1991). 97 See Bueford, 991 F.2d at 486. 22 Cite as: 2014 UT 28 Opinion of the Court ¶ 42 We recognize that the FDIC‘s denial of a claim of one who never received notice of the administrative claims review process would present due process concerns.98 However, Plaintiffs did receive notice. 99 Because Plaintiffs had notice of the claims review process, they were not deprived of due process.100 Plaintiffs failed to avail themselves of the available claims review process, and this failure to act to protect their rights does not amount to a violation of due process.101