Administrative Law — money damages

Listen to this article

 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Administrative Law — money damages

The Administrative Procedure Act does not authorize claims for moey damages against the FDIC.

“Plaintiffs brought an Administrative Procedure Act (‘APA’) claim against FDIC-Corporate, alleging that they had been (1) misled into investing $30 million into the bank and (2) prevented from getting their money back on the eve of insolvency. The district court dismissed this claim as moot, but we dismiss on different jurisdictional grounds. This claim asserts that FDIC-Corporate’s failure to approve the note redemption caused Plaintiffs injury, and that FDIC-Corporate should compensate them for that injury in the form of cash and the use of the FDIC’s own funds to create personal deposit accounts for them. But this request for substitute monetary relief constitutes a request for ‘money damages,’ which the APA does not authorize. See 5 U.S.C. § 702.”

“In addition, Plaintiffs asserted APA and Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (‘FIRREA’) claims against FDIC-Receiver for rejecting their proofs of claim. The district court’s dismissal of these claims was proper. We lack jurisdiction to consider Plaintiffs’ APA claim against FDIC-Receiver because 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(7)(A) only permits such a claim if Plaintiffs first seek administrative review of the disallowance, which they did not. And Plaintiffs’ FIRREA claim essentially challenges the FDIC’s regulatory decision not to act on the bank’s redemption approval request, when FIRREA’s administrative claims process only contemplates claims premised on the acts of the bank, not the FDIC as regulator.”

Affirmed.

10-3879 Veluchamy v. FDIC

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Hibbler, J., Williams, J.