Federal Jurisdiction (Article III and Prudential Standing)

Jerry has been lead counsel in several federal circuit court decisions addressing the jurisdictional limits of the federal courts. The federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning they have jurisdiction over the subject matter of a suit only to the extent permissible under Article III of the Constitution of the United States or by federal statute. Under Article III, federal courts have jurisdiction only where there is present a “case or controversy” between the parties. Federal courts may not issue advisory opinions over cases in which no case or controversy exists. In addition, federal and state courts will exercise jurisdiction only where the parties have prudential standing, i.e., even if a case or controversy exists, the courts will not exercise jurisdiction where no meaningful relief can be provided.

VON ROHR V. FDIC

Von Rohr, 826 F.3d 1046 (8th Cir. 2016) (lead counsel for FDIC) (in a suit brought by the former chief executive officer against his former bank and the FDIC alleging that bank breached his employment contract and challenging FDIC's decision that payment thereunder would constitute a prohibited golden-parachute payment, the court of appeals affirmed the […]

... [Read more...]

STATE NAT'L BANK OF BIG SPRING V. LEW

State Nat'l Bank of Big Spring v. Lew, 795 F.3d 48 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (on the briefs for FDIC) (holding that twelve state attorneys general lacked Article III standing to challenge the constitutionality of FDIC's orderly liquidation authority enacted as Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act because their allegations of harm were attenuated).

... [Read more...]

QUINTERO COMMUNITY ASSN. INC. V. FDIC

Quintero Community Assn. Inc. v. FDIC, 792 F.3d 1002 (8th Cir. 2015) (argued for FDIC) (in a suit brought by investors in a failed golf-resort development against FDIC as receiver for the primary project lender and the lender's directors and officers, declining to reverse the district court's denial of the investors' remand motion arguing the […]

... [Read more...]

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. V. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INS. CO.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. First American Title Ins. Co., 750 F.3d 573 (6th Cir. 2014) (argued for FDIC) (holding that FDIC, as receiver, could bring a breach-of-contract action against a title insurance company based upon the terms of a closing protection letter (CPL) issued by the company whereby it agreed to indemnify the bank […]

... [Read more...]

DEUTSCHE BANK NAT'L TRUST CO. V. FDIC

Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. FDIC, 717 F.3d 189 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (argued for FDIC) (holding that bondholders of Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) possessing $6 billion in allowed claims against the WaMu receivership lacked Article III and prudential standing to intervene in a contract dispute between FDIC and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., about whether […]

... [Read more...]

GTS 900F V. FDIC

GTS 900F v. FDIC, 2012 WL 2086305 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (argued for FDIC) (holding upon review under the APA that the FDIC's determination there would never be assets in a failed bank's receivership to pay dividends to general unsecured creditors was not arbitrary, capricious, and abuse of discretion, or rendered in violation of law and, […]

... [Read more...]

TRI-STATE HOTELS, INC. V. FDIC

Tri-State Hotels, Inc. v. FDIC, 79 F.3d 707 (8th Cir. 1996) (acting senior counsel for FDIC) (affirming district court's judgment that a debtor of the bank had to comply with FDIC's administrative claims process in FIRREA before the court would have subject matter jurisdiction of a suit against FDIC as receiver).

... [Read more...]

NAT'L TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRES. V. FDIC

Nat'l Trust for Historic Pres. v. FDIC, 995 F.2d 238, 240 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (lead counsel for FDIC), vacated, 5 F.3d 567 (D.C. Cir. 1993), reinstated in relevant part, 21 F.3d 469 (D.C. Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1065 (1994) (argued for FDIC) (holding that state and federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to […]

... [Read more...]