U.S. Supreme Court Will Not Hear Case Against FDIC Ruled as Time-Barred

U.S. Supreme Court Will Not Hear Case Against FDIC Ruled as Time-Barred

 WASHINGTON, D.C. — (Mealey’s) The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 7 refused to hear an appeal of a case in which the District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a federal court’s dismissal as time-barred of a borrower’s home-foreclosure suit against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. as the receiver for the failed Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) (Hussain Kareem v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., et al., No. 13-5361, U.S. Sup.; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 6664; See October 2012, Page 20).

Hussain Kareem obtained a home mortgage loan from WaMu on Aug. 17, 2007. The Office of Thrift Supervision declared WaMu insolvent in September 2008 and appointed the FDIC as receiver. Kareem subsequently filed a claim with the FDIC arising from foreclosure proceedings on the home mortgage. The FDIC had until July 1, 2009, to make a determination regarding Kareem’s claim, but it did not do so. Kareem had 60 days from July 1, 2009, to file a civil complaint against the FDIC. Kareem, proceeding pro se, mailed his complaint from Atlanta on Aug. 31, 2009, and it was received by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia clerk’s office for filing on Sept. 1, 2009.

The District Court on July 27, 2010, granted the FDIC’s motion to dismiss, ruling that because Kareem’s complaint was not received by the clerk’s office for filing on or before Aug. 31, 2009, the claims against the FDIC are time-barred, depriving the District Court of subject matter jurisdiction.

On Sept. 15, 2011, the District Court denied Kareem’s motion for reconsideration, and on Oct. 3, 2011, he appealed to the D.C. Circuit.

D.C. Circuit Affirms

The District Court properly dismissed Kareem’s complaint as untimely because it was filed more than 60 days after his administrative claim was deemed disallowed, the D.C. Circuit panel said, citing 12 U.S. Code Section 1821(d)(6) and Freeman v. FDIC (56 F.3d 1394, 1400 [D.C. Cir. 1995]). Furthermore, Kareem is not entitled to the benefits of the “mailbox rule” because he is not a prisoner, the panel said, citing Houston v. Lack (487 U.S. 266 [1988]), which held that “prisoners cannot take the steps other litigants can take to . . . ensure that the court clerk receives and stamps their notices of appeal before the 30-day deadline.”  Additionally, Kareem has not demonstrated that his complaint should be treated as timely filed because of excusable neglect, the panel found.

The panel concluded that the District Court did not err in denying Kareem’s motions for reconsideration, for judgment as a matter of law, to set aside or vacate the judgment and for a new trial.

On July 17, 2013, Kareem appealed to the Supreme Court.

Kareem of Lawrenceville, Ga., appears pro se. The FDIC is represented by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. of the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington.

Mealey's is now available in eBook format!

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.