Opinion ID: 3046219
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: FDIC’s Declaratory Relief

Text: The district court declared that the FDIC owed no damages to Interface based on any potential claim Interface had against the FDIC. This determination was erroneous. The district court did not have the authority to grant declaratory relief because Interface had yet to submit a claim against the FDIC through the FIRREA administrative claims process. Except as otherwise provided in FIRREA, “no court shall have jurisdiction over – (i) any claim or action for payment from, or any action seeking a determination of rights with respect to, the assets of any depository institution for which the [FDIC] has been appointed receiver. . . or (ii) any claim relating to any act or omission of such institution or the [FDIC.]” 12 13 Case: 11-13579 Date Filed: 01/10/2013 Page: 14 of 15 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(13)(D)(i)-(ii); 2 see also Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. City Sav., F.S.B., 28 F.3d 376, 385 (3d Cir. 1994) (finding that the plain meaning of § 1821(d)(13)(D)(i) includes declaratory judgment actions). While FIRREA does not provide “an explicit mandate for exhaustion of administrative remedies[,] [its] provisions are accepted by the cases and by Congress as having that meaning.” F.D.I.C. v. Lacentra Trucking, Inc., 157 F.3d 1292, 1294 (11th Cir. 1998). Thus, for post-receivership claims—such as Interface’s potential claim against the FDIC—the court has “no subject matter jurisdiction unless the claimant has exhausted the administrative remedies.” Damiano v. F.D.I.C., 104 F.3d 328, 333 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Aguilar v. F.D.I.C., 63 F.3d 1059, 1061 (11th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (noting that “[u]nder FIRREA, federal courts generally lack the authority to decide claims against an institution in federal receivership until the claimant has exhausted his administrative remedies against the FDIC”). Because “FIRREA contains no provision granting federal jurisdiction to claims filed after a receiver is appointed but before administrative exhaustion,” Meliezer v. Resolution Trust Co., 952 F.2d 879, 882 (5th Cir. 1992), and because it is undisputed that Interface has not submitted a claim against the FDIC through the FIRREA administrative claims 2 See 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(6) (providing for the option of filing suit after the FDIC’s initial determination to allow or disallow a claim in one of two specified federal courts); id. § 1821(d)(7)(A) (providing for judicial review of the FDIC’s final administrative determination). 14 Case: 11-13579 Date Filed: 01/10/2013 Page: 15 of 15 process, the district court lacked jurisdiction to declare that Interface is not entitled to damages from the FDIC. Accordingly, this portion of the district court’s judgment is also vacated.