The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Mills, District Judge:
Sadly, we face here the failure of another Savings & Loan.
The issue: whether a complaint against the Resolution Trust
Corporation, as receiver of a failed financial institution,
must be dismissed when the plaintiff filed its claim in United
States District Court prior to pursuing federally mandated
Before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) because Plaintiff failed to
exhaust its administrative remedies as required by 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)
before bringing its claim in federal court.
This is not the first time that we have visited this matter.
See Orchard Hills Cooperative Apartments, Inc. v. Germania
Federal Savings and Loan Association, 720 F. Supp. 127 (C.D.Ill.
1989).*fn1 We will not repeat the lengthy facts detailed in
its prior decision, however some supplementation is necessary.
Orchard Hills Cooperative Apartments, at 128-29. After this
Court dismissed Plaintiff's suit, Plaintiff filed a complaint
against Germania Federal Savings & Loan (Germania) in the
Circuit Court of Sangamon County on June 26, 1990. The
complaint contained three counts: Count I alleged common law
fraud; Count II alleged that Germania breached its fiduciary
duty to Plaintiff; and a breach of contract claim was brought
in Count III.
On July 26, 1991, Defendant was appointed receiver of
Germania and this Court granted its motion to substitute RTC
as receiver as the defendant in this case. Defendant now seeks
to have this case dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust
the administrative procedures for bringing claims against the
RTC as established in the Financial Institution Reform,
Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 ("FIRREA"), 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)
When ruling on a motion to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(1), the
court must take all of the plaintiff's allegations as true and
must view them, along with all reasonable inferences
therefrom, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Brown v. Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., 680 F. Supp. 1212
(N.D.Ill. 1988). A district court may properly look beyond
the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and view
whatever evidence has been submitted relevant to the
determination of jurisdiction. Grafon Corp. v. Hausermann,
602 F.2d 781 (7th Cir. 1979). Dismissal is proper when the
complaint fails to sufficiently allege the existence of subject
matter jurisdiction. Brown, at 1215.
In response to the savings and loan crisis, Congress enacted
FIRREA in order to provide a regulatory framework in which
claims against failed financial institutions could be handled
"expeditiously and fairly." Hermitage Associates v. Resolution
Trust Corp., No. 91-2027, 1991 WL 281737, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
15507 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 1991) (quoting H.R.Rep. No. 54(I),
101st Cong. 1st Sess. 419 (1989, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News
1989, p. 86)). To help attain this goal, FIRREA created the RTC
to manage, contain and resolve all cases involving failed
savings institutions. 12 U.S.C. § 1441a(b)(3)(A) (1989). Under
12 U.S.C. § 1441a(b)(4) (1989), RTC has the same powers and
rights to perform its duties as the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC) has according to 12 U.S.C. § 1821, 1822,
and 1823 (1989). Decrosta v. Red Carpet Inns Int'l Inc.,
767 F. Supp. 694 (E.D.Pa. 1991).
The resolution procedure for claims filed against a
financial institution in RTC receivership are set forth in
12 U.S.C. § 1821(d). First, a claimant may file its claim with the
RTC which has 180 days to allow or disallow it.
12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(5)(A)(i) (1989). Afterwards, if a claimant is
dissatisfied with the results, it has 60 days to obtain de novo
judicial review of the RTC's determination pursuant to §
1821(d)(6)(A) which provides in pertinent part:
the claimant may request administrative review of
the claim in accordance with subparagraph (A) or
(B) of paragraph (7) or file suit on such claim
(or continue an action commenced before the
appointment of the receiver) in the district or
territorial court of the United States for the
district within which the depository
institution's principal place of business is
located or the United States ...