Dennis Joslin Co. v. Robinson Broadcasting Corp., Civil Action No. 97-0986 (PLF).

CourtUnited States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
Writing for the CourtPaul L. Friedman
Citation977 F.Supp. 491
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 97-0986 (PLF).
Decision Date22 September 1997
PartiesDENNIS JOSLIN COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ROBINSON BROADCASTING CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
977 F.Supp. 491
DENNIS JOSLIN COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
ROBINSON BROADCASTING CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 97-0986 (PLF).
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
September 22, 1997.

Page 492

Bravitt C. Manley, Jr., Washington, DC, for Dennis Joslin Co., LLC.

Stanley M. Brand, Brand Lowell & Ryan, Washington, DC, for Edward Saunders.

Philip Lee Kellogg, Kellogg Williams & Lyons, Washington, DC, for Barrington B. Barnes, Jacqueline Barnes.

Steven Harold Greenfeld, Gins & Greenfeld, PC, Washington, DC, for Nancy Freeman.

Marcia Kaplan Docter, Docter, Docter & Lynn, PC, Washington, DC, for Alvin F. Robinson.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, District Judge.


This matter is before the Court on defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff opposes the motion. The matter was argued before the Court on September 9, 1997. Upon consideration of the parties' briefs and arguments, the Court concludes that the District of Columbia version of the Uniform Commercial Code prevents enforcement of the note against defendant Robinson Broadcasting Corporation, but all other defendants have waived the defense. The motion to dismiss of Robinson Broadcasting Corporation therefore is granted. The motion of all other defendants must be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

This is a case about an unpaid note. Plaintiff, the current holder of the note, claims that defendants owe a principal sum of $558,938.07, interest of $489,474.66 through May 1, 1997 (with interest accruing at $156.96 a day), and attorneys' fees and court costs. Subtracted from that amount is $39,050.10 in payments that plaintiff concedes having received.

In 1985, defendant Robinson Broadcasting Corporation executed the note in exchange for a loan by the Madison National Bank. At the same time, the remaining defendants ("Guarantor Defendants") executed an unconditional loan guarantee of payment for the note to Madison. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation acquired the note when it became receiver for Madison in 1991. The FDIC subsequently sold the note to 4M Communications. In March 1997, FDIC issued an affidavit of lost note to 4M Communications indicating that it had lost the original note. Approximately two months later, 4M Communications sold its interest in the note, via an assignment of promissory note, to the Joslin Company. The Joslin Company is now suing to recover the money owed on the note.1

Defendants Barrington Barnes and Jacqueline Barnes filed a joint motion to dismiss. Robinson Broadcasting, Nancy Freeman, Alvin Robinson and Edward Saunders

Page 493

joined in that motion. A "Suggestion of Death" has been filed with respect to Charles F. Adams, and plaintiff's counsel received a letter indicating that Jacqueline Robinson is also now deceased. All of the defendants except Robinson Broadcasting are guarantors on Robinson's note.

II. DISCUSSION

Defendants argue that plaintiff is precluded by statute from suing on this note because the note has been lost and because the note was not in plaintiff's possession at the time the note was lost. See D.C.Code § 28:3-309 (1996). In response, plaintiff argues: (1) that 12 U.S.C. § 1821(j) prevents this Court from reaching the merits of this defense; (2) that the Guarantor Defendants have waived the statutory UCC defense by signing the Loan Guarantee agreement; and (3) that even if there were no waiver, the UCC defense is unavailable to the Guarantor Defendants.

A. Preemption of Defense by 12 U.S.C. § 1821(j)

The Court first addresses plaintiff's contention, raised at oral argument, that 12 U.S.C. § 1821(j) prevents defendants from invoking a defense based on the District of Columbia version of the Uniform Commercial Code, D.C.Code § 28:3-309. The bar imposed by 12 U.S.C. § 1821(j) is jurisdictional and it therefore must be considered prior to a consideration of the statutory defense. See National Trust for Historic Preservation v. FDIC, 21 F.3d 469, 471 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1065, 115 S.Ct. 683, 130 L.Ed.2d 615 (1994).

Congress has decreed that no court may "take any action, except at the request of the Board of Directors [of the FDIC] by regulation or order, to restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of the [Federal Deposit Insurance] Corporation as a conservator or a receiver." 12 U.S.C. § 1821(j) (1989). Our Court of Appeals has held that this provision, in conjunction with 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(13)(D), prevents the Court from exercising jurisdiction over actions for injunctive relief brought against the FDIC in its capacity as receiver or conservator; i.e. it is intended to protect the functions of the FDIC from judicial interference.2 See Freeman v. FDIC, 56 F.3d 1394, 1398-99 (D.C.Cir.1995); National Trust for Historic Preservation v. FDIC, 995 F.2d 238, 240 (D.C.Cir.1993), vacated, 5 F.3d 567 (D.C.Cir. 1993), reinstated, 21 F.3d 469 (D.C.Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1065, 115 S.Ct. 683, 130 L.Ed.2d 615 (1994). Plaintiff argues that the jurisdictional bar imposed by 12 U.S.C. § 1821(j) also precludes this Court from recognizing defenses to enforcement of a note such as those raised by the defendants, because recognizing such defenses would impair the FDIC's ability to sell notes that it holds as receiver of failed banks.

The Court finds that 12 U.S.C. § 1821(j) is inapplicable to this case. First, while Section 1821(j) has been read broadly, and some courts have recognized that a suit against an entity other than the FDIC as conservator or receiver may nonetheless impair the FDIC's functions, see Pyramid Construction Co., Inc. v. Wind River Petroleum, Inc., 866 F.Supp. 513, 518 (D.Utah 1994), the limitation imposed by 12 U.S.C. § 1821(j) is intended to protect the FDIC's powers and functions as conservator or receiver. It does not follow that these protections attach for all time to a note once held by the FDIC. Plaintiff in this case has not shown that the FDIC's functions will be impaired in any way if this Court recognizes a defense to the note. Section 1821(j) therefore does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction to consider the UCC defense.

Second, while 12 U.S.C. § 1821(j) precludes other individuals or entities from bringing suit against the FDIC as conservator or receiver, it is not at all clear that the provision was intended to prevent defendants from raising affirmative defenses to suits...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 practice notes
  • Fraternal Order of Police v. U.S., No. 97-5304
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • April 16, 1999
    ...arguments raised for the first time at oral argument in deciding dispositive motions. See Joslin Co. v. Robinson Broadcasting Corp., 977 F.Supp. 491, 493 (D.D.C.1997) (motion to dismiss); Jones v. WMATA, 1997 WL 198114, at * 1, n. 1, No. Civ. A. 95-2300-LFO (D.D.C. April 10, 1997) (summary ......
  • Seven Oaks Enters., L.P. v. Devito, AC 38325
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • October 23, 2018
    ...but courts in other jurisdictions, and our Superior Courts, have done so.In Dennis Joslin Co., LLC v. Robinson Broadcasting Corp. , 977 F.Supp. 491, 495 (D.D.C. 1997) ( Dennis Joslin ), the District Court held that the District of Columbia's version of UCC § 3-309 precluded the plaintiff fr......
  • Jones v. Ward, 1071, Sept. Term, 2020
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • February 24, 2022
    ...50 states.An issue concerning enforceability of lost instruments, first recognized in Dennis Joslin Co. v. Robinson Broadcasting Corp. , 977 F.Supp. 491, 494 (D.D.C. 1997), arose under the 1990 revision.8 In Dennis Joslin Co. , an assignee sought to enforce a note that had been lost while i......
  • Investors Bank v. Torres, A-55 September Term 2018
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • July 1, 2020
    ...those of a party assigned the right to enforce the instrument at a later stage.In Dennis Joslin Co., LLC v. Robinson Broadcasting Corp., 977 F. Supp. 491, 494-95 (D.D.C. 1997), the court interpreted the District of Columbia's version of UCC section 3-309 more restrictively than its drafters......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
37 cases
  • Fraternal Order of Police v. U.S., No. 97-5304
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • April 16, 1999
    ...arguments raised for the first time at oral argument in deciding dispositive motions. See Joslin Co. v. Robinson Broadcasting Corp., 977 F.Supp. 491, 493 (D.D.C.1997) (motion to dismiss); Jones v. WMATA, 1997 WL 198114, at * 1, n. 1, No. Civ. A. 95-2300-LFO (D.D.C. April 10, 1997) (summary ......
  • Seven Oaks Enters., L.P. v. Devito, AC 38325
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • October 23, 2018
    ...but courts in other jurisdictions, and our Superior Courts, have done so.In Dennis Joslin Co., LLC v. Robinson Broadcasting Corp. , 977 F.Supp. 491, 495 (D.D.C. 1997) ( Dennis Joslin ), the District Court held that the District of Columbia's version of UCC § 3-309 precluded the plaintiff fr......
  • Jones v. Ward, 1071, Sept. Term, 2020
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • February 24, 2022
    ...50 states.An issue concerning enforceability of lost instruments, first recognized in Dennis Joslin Co. v. Robinson Broadcasting Corp. , 977 F.Supp. 491, 494 (D.D.C. 1997), arose under the 1990 revision.8 In Dennis Joslin Co. , an assignee sought to enforce a note that had been lost while i......
  • Investors Bank v. Torres, A-55 September Term 2018
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • July 1, 2020
    ...those of a party assigned the right to enforce the instrument at a later stage.In Dennis Joslin Co., LLC v. Robinson Broadcasting Corp., 977 F. Supp. 491, 494-95 (D.D.C. 1997), the court interpreted the District of Columbia's version of UCC section 3-309 more restrictively than its drafters......
  • 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