Serrano Square LLC v. First Republic Bank

C.D. California

Serrano Square LLC v. First Republic Bank

DecidedSeptember 7, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-04298

StatusUnknown

This text of Serrano Square LLC v. First Republic Bank (Serrano Square LLC v. First Republic Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Serrano Square LLC v. First Republic Bank, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:23-cv-04298-RGK-RAO Date September 7, 2023 Title Serrano Square, LLC vy. First Republic Bank et al.

Present: The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Joseph Remigio (not present) Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause Re: Subject Matter Jurisdiction

On March 17, 2023, Serrano Square, LLC (‘Plaintiff’) filed a Complaint against First Republic Bank (“FRB”), a federally insured depository institution, in state court. On May 1, 2023, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation closed FRB and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as the receiver for FRB. On June 1, 2023, FDIC removed the action to this Court, and on June 14, the Court granted a mandatory stay pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(12)(A). On September 6, 2023, FDIC submitted a status report requesting a further stay to allow Plaintiff to complete the administrative claims process because until the claims process is complete. Under 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(13)(D), federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over claims against a depository institution to which the FDIC has been appointed receiver, unless and until the plaintiff's administrative claims have been exhausted. Henderson v. Bank of New England, 986 F.2d 319, 320-21 (9th Cir. 1993). On that basis, FDIC is correct; this action cannot be litigated at this time. However, if the Court lacks jurisdiction, it seems that the proper course of action is dismissal without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS FDIC to SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING by September 14, 2023, why the Court should not dismiss this action without prejudice. FDIC’s filing must be no more than three (3) pages in length. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Preparer JRE/snf

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:23-cv-04298-RGK-RAO Date September 7, 2023 Title Serrano Square, LLC vy. First Republic Bank et al.

Present: The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Joseph Remigio (not present) Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause Re: Subject Matter Jurisdiction

On March 17, 2023, Serrano Square, LLC (‘Plaintiff’) filed a Complaint against First Republic Bank (“FRB”), a federally insured depository institution, in state court. On May 1, 2023, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation closed FRB and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as the receiver for FRB. On June 1, 2023, FDIC removed the action to this Court, and on June 14, the Court granted a mandatory stay pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(12)(A). On September 6, 2023, FDIC submitted a status report requesting a further stay to allow Plaintiff to complete the administrative claims process because until the claims process is complete. Under 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(13)(D), federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over claims against a depository institution to which the FDIC has been appointed receiver, unless and until the plaintiff's administrative claims have been exhausted. Henderson v. Bank of New England, 986 F.2d 319, 320-21 (9th Cir. 1993). On that basis, FDIC is correct; this action cannot be litigated at this time. However, if the Court lacks jurisdiction, it seems that the proper course of action is dismissal without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS FDIC to SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING by September 14, 2023, why the Court should not dismiss this action without prejudice. FDIC’s filing must be no more than three (3) pages in length. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Preparer JRE/snf

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Serrano Square LLC v. First Republic Bank, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/serrano-square-llc-v-first-republic-bank-cacd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack