- Case No. 1:09-cv-01278 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 8, 2011)
- The Court reversed and remanded the district court's sua sponte ruling that Plaintiff lacked standing under Rule 12(b)(1). The Court ruled that Rule 4(a)(5)(C) is a claim-processing rule, not a jurisdictional bar, and failure to object on timeliness grounds waives the objection. The Court also ruled that Plaintiff had standing because her complaint alleged harm by WaMu; possible involvement of other parties in the allegedly wrongful foreclosure did not deprive Plaintiff of standing.
- Procedural context:
- The district court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint sua sponte under Rule 12(b)(1) on the grounds that Plaintiff lacked standing. Plaintiff filed a request for extension of time to appeal, which was granted. However, the district court extended the deadline 1 day beyond what is permitted by Rule 4(a)(5)(C).
- Plaintiff carried a mortgage on her house located in New York. In 2001 Washington Mutual ("WaMu") acquired the note and mortgage and assigned it to Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae"). Plaintiff's house went into foreclosure. WaMu failed and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") became its receiver. Plaintiff sued the FDIC in 2009 alleging that WaMu engaged in wrongful conduct following the foreclosure. The FDIC moved to dismiss on 12(b)(6) grounds. The district court sua sponte dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) on the grounds that Plaintiff lacked standing. The FDIC argued that Plaintiff's notice of appeal was untimely under Rule 4(a)(5)(C) and therefore the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's appeal. Alternatively, the FDIC argued that dismissal was appropriate because Plaintiff failed to allege causation and redressability, since Plaintiff's alleged injuries depended not only on WaMu's involvement, but also actions by Fannie Mae.
- Tatel, Brown, and Willams
3029 in the system
0 Being Processed