Everett N. Dobson & Sons v. Dictar Associates

Decision Date17 May 1991
Docket NumberNo. 91-0119-P.,91-0119-P.
Citation764 F. Supp. 1
PartiesEVERETT N. DOBSON & SONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. DICTAR ASSOCIATES II, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Maine

George F. Burns, A. Robert Ruesch, Amerling & Burns, Portland, Me., for plaintiff.

William J. Kayatta Jr., Pierce, Atwood, Scribner, Allen, Smith & Lancaster, Portland, Me., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

GENE CARTER, Chief Judge.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (hereinafter FDIC) moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(c) that it be substituted for Maine National Bank (hereinafter MNB) with respect to all claims in this litigation for damages or restitution against MNB. On January 6, 1991, MNB was declared insolvent and the FDIC was appointed receiver of MNB pursuant to 12 U.S.C. sections 191 and 1821(c). The FDIC assumed all of MNB's liabilities, including the claims against MNB which are part of this litigation, and transferred all of MNB's assets to New Maine National Bank, a "bridge bank" chartered pursuant to 12 U.S.C. section 1821(n). As a result, the FDIC is the real party in interest with respect to the present claims seeking damages from MNB. Accordingly, the FDIC's motion to substitute parties will be granted.

The FDIC also moves to dismiss this action on the grounds that Plaintiff has not yet exhausted the administrative remedies mandated by 12 U.S.C. section 1821(d)(3), (5), (6), and (13)(D). Without going into detail, the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) established a detailed and exclusive procedure for resolving claims against banks placed in receivership by the FDIC. Title 12 U.S.C. section 1821(d)(13)(D) expressly divests this Court of jurisdiction over "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" until the mandated administrative process has been exhausted. Plaintiff argues that dismissal of its claims against the FDIC will result in a determination of priorities for the obligations owed by Defendant Dictar Associates II without consideration of Plaintiff's mechanic's lien on the involved property, thereby prejudicing Plaintiff's position as a creditor. New Maine National Bank is seeking foreclosure on the involved property in a separate action in this Court. In sum, Plaintiff asserts that this Court should not proceed with the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Vinton v. Trustbank Sav., FSB
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • July 7, 1992
    ...party to defend under liability claims by borrower's even though borrower's notes assigned to other entity); Everett N. Dobson & Sons v. Dictar Associates, 764 F.Supp. 1 (D.Me.1991) (FDIC's motion to substitute for failed bank as real party in interest Plaintiff's argument is based on the n......
  • Estate of Harding By Williams v. Bell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • April 6, 1993
    ...FDIC's motion for substitution. Bank of New England, N.A. v. Callahan, 758 F.Supp. 61, 62 (D.N.H.1991); Everett N. Dobson & Sons v. Dictar Assoc. II, 764 F.Supp. 1, 1 (D.Me. 1991). 5. Stay or Dismissal The FDIC seeks one of two remedies: a stay of 180 days from the date plaintiff files a cl......
  • FDIC v. Vernon Real Estate Investments, Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • July 24, 1992
    ...to hear the claims asserted by Circle Industries against the insolvent banks."). In one case, Everett N. Dobson & Sons, Inc. v. Dictar Associates II, 764 F.Supp. 1 (D.Me.1991), the FDIC, after moving to be substituted for an insolvent bank that had been sued in federal court, moved to dismi......
  • Simms v. Biondo, 90-CV-3184.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • January 24, 1992
    ...of § 1821(d) referencing a stay of actions commenced prior to the appointment of RTC as receiver. 2 Everett Dobson & Sons, Inc. v. Dictar Associates II, 764 F.Supp. 1 (D.Me.1991) mirrors the reasoning of New Maine Nat. Bank in dismissing pre-receivership claims for lack of subject matter ju......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT