Federal Dep. Ins. Corp. v. Lopez Victoria
| Decision Date | 25 April 1978 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 78-370,78-375 and 78-374. |
| Parties | FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. Manuel A. LOPEZ VICTORIA. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION v. Mario E. ROSA GARCIA. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION v. Eliud LOPEZ VELEZ. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Robert M. Sweeting, San Juan, P. R., Pedro Zorrilla Martínez, Río Piedras, P. R., for plaintiff.
Rubén O. Figueroa, Hato Rey, P. R., for defendant.
These three cases were originally filed in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, San Juan Part, on March 12, 1974, under Civil Numbers 74-1932, 74-1927 and 74-3417. The original actions were for the recovery of money owed to Banco Economias (a locally chartered bank), by several residents of Puerto Rico. On January 31, 1978 the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) formally entered in substitution of the original plaintiff as assignee of all problem assets of Banco Economias. Upon entry of FDIC the various Defendants filed Petitions for removal of their respective cases. Plaintiff FDIC now moves to remand to the Superior Court all three cases. Since all three actions present the same exact issue of law they are consolidated for purposes of this order.
Defendants invoke 12 U.S.C. § 1819(4) as grounds for removal in their respective petitions for removal. The FDIC in its motion to remand argues that said statute grants authority for removal exclusively to the FDIC and not to any other party in a suit wherein it is involved. Said statute provides in its pertinent part:
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) an action brought in a state court over which federal district courts have original jurisdiction may be removed "except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress". The specific issue thus presented is whether 12 U.S.C. § 1819(4) is such an exception.
Under the literal terms of 12 U.S.C. § 1819(4) an action involving the FDIC is one "deemed to arise under the laws of the United States". When FDIC became a party plaintiff in this case it became one removable under the terms of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). The FDIC cites Franklin National Bank Securities Litigation v. Anderson, 532 F.2d 842 (CA2 1976) for the proposition that removal under this section is exclusively entrusted to the FDIC. However, Franklin, supra, in holding that the FDIC may remove as either a plaintiff or defendant, enhances and enlarges rather than restricts removal jurisdiction. We have found no authority to hold that § 1819(4) was meant as an exception to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Otero
...Defendants then removed the actions to federal court. The appellant and the FDIC unsuccessfully moved to remand, FDIC v. Lopez Victoria, 448 F.Supp. 843 (D.P.R.1978), 2 giving rise to this Appellant first argues that the "mere substitution" of the FDIC as a party should not transform a suit......
-
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. De Jesus Velez
...v. Ashley, 585 F.2d 157 (6th Cir. 1978); FDIC v. Godshall, 558 F.2d 220 (4th Cir. 1977); FDIC v. Abraham, supra, at 1153; FDIC v. López, 448 F.Supp. 843 (D.P.R.1978), affirmed, sub nom, FDIC v. Otero, 598 F.2d 627 (1st Cir. 1979). Jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff's claim based on the not......
-
F.D.I.C. v. Cabral
...at 630; Franklin National Bank Securities Litigation v. Andersen, 532 F.2d 842, 845 (2d Cir.1976); Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Lopez Victoria, 448 F.Supp. 843, 844 (D.P.R.1978). In sum, although both the FDIC and "other parties" have the ability to remove lawsuits involving the FDIC ......
-
FDIC v. The Atlantic Organization, Inc., Civ. No. 87-01200 (JAF).
...thirty days after defendant filed its counterclaim, the removal was timely under section 1819(4)); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. López Victoria, 448 F.Supp. 843 (D.P.R.1978). In Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. López Victoria, 448 F.Supp. 843 (D.P.R.1978) (Torruella, J.),......