James Kelley v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Ninth Circuit

James Kelley v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

713 F. App'x 632

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 23, 2018

Docket17-15489

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 713 F. App'x 632 (James Kelley v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James Kelley v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 713 F. App'x 632 (9th Cir. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

James M. Kelley appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s summary judgment in Kelley’s adversary proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo. Suncrest Healthcare Ctr. LLC v. Omega Healthcare Inv’rs, Inc. (In re Raintree Healthcare Corp.), 431 F.3d 685, 687 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly granted summary judgment because Kelley failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (“FIR-REA”). See 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(3)-(10) (setting forth FIRREA’s administrative claims process); Rundgren v. Wash. Mut. Bank, FA, 760 F.3d 1056, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2014) (§ 1821(d)(13)(D) strips courts of jurisdiction over claims against certain failed banks when such claims have not been exhausted through FIRRÉA’s claims process); Benson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 1207, 1209 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[A] claim asserted against a purchasing bank based on the conduct of a failed bank must be exhausted under FIRREA.”). Because a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be without prejudice, Kelly v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 377 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004), we remand to the bankruptcy court with instructions to amend the judgment to reflect that the dismissal of claims barred by FIRREA is without prejudice.

We reject as without merit Kelley’s contentions that he properly rescinded under the Truth in Lending Act and his contentions in support of his objections to defendants’ proof of claims.

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions to amend the judgment.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

James M. Kelley appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s summary judgment in Kelley’s adversary proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo. Suncrest Healthcare Ctr. LLC v. Omega Healthcare Inv’rs, Inc. (In re Raintree Healthcare Corp.), 431 F.3d 685, 687 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly granted summary judgment because Kelley failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (“FIR-REA”). See 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(3)-(10) (setting forth FIRREA’s administrative claims process); Rundgren v. Wash. Mut. Bank, FA, 760 F.3d 1056, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2014) (§ 1821(d)(13)(D) strips courts of jurisdiction over claims against certain failed banks when such claims have not been exhausted through FIRRÉA’s claims process); Benson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 1207, 1209 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[A] claim asserted against a purchasing bank based on the conduct of a failed bank must be exhausted under FIRREA.”). Because a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be without prejudice, Kelly v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 377 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004), we remand to the bankruptcy court with instructions to amend the judgment to reflect that the dismissal of claims barred by FIRREA is without prejudice.

We reject as without merit Kelley’s contentions that he properly rescinded under the Truth in Lending Act and his contentions in support of his objections to defendants’ proof of claims.

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions to amend the judgment.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

713 F. App'x 632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-kelley-v-jpmorgan-chase-bank-na-ca9-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack