308 F. Supp. 3d 197
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- FDIC administers the Deposit Insurance Fund and collects quarterly, risk-based assessments from insured banks under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA).
- FDIC alleges Bank of America, N.A. (BANA) underreported Call Report data for Q1 2012–Q4 2014 (with some concessions and tolling for parts of 2013–2014), causing $1.12 billion in underpaid assessments.
- FDIC sued to recover unpaid assessments under 12 U.S.C. § 1817 and added an unjust enrichment claim; BANA moved to dismiss or strike parts of the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
- BANA’s principal arguments: (1) unjust enrichment is unavailable because FDIC has an adequate statutory remedy under the FDIA; (2) FDIC failed to allege the necessary elements of unjust enrichment; and (3) many asserted assessments are time-barred by a three-year statute of limitations.
- The Court denied the motion to dismiss/strike in part, holding at the pleading stage that FDIC may plead alternative theories (including unjust enrichment), that FDIC adequately pleaded conferment of a benefit, and that timeliness issues were fact-bound and not ripe for dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can FDIC plead unjust enrichment alongside FDIA claim? | FDIC may plead alternative remedies; FDIA permits common-law claims; Rule 8(d) allows alternative theories. | Unjust enrichment is equitable and barred when an adequate legal remedy (FDIA) exists; claims are coterminous. | Court: Pleading unjust enrichment is permitted at this stage; Rule 8(d)(2) allows alternative theories. |
| Did FDIC sufficiently plead unjust enrichment (benefit conferred)? | Deposit insurance is a direct, valuable benefit to BANA; BANA underpaid and was unjustly enriched. | Mere failure to pay statutory assessments cannot support unjust enrichment as a matter of law. | Court: FDIC plausibly alleged a benefit and retention; Rapaport is distinguishable. |
| Are FDIA claims for pre-2013 assessments time-barred? | FDIC: not conclusively time-barred because the FDIA tolls the limitations period where defendant made false statements with intent to evade, and discovery date is disputed. | BANA: three-year FDIA statute bars older claims; FDIC did not plead fraudulent intent. | Court: Dismissal premature; intent/fraudulent concealment is an affirmative defense and timeliness is fact-bound. |
| Is the unjust enrichment claim time-barred under D.C. law or otherwise? | FDIC: limitations do not run until wrongful withholding; also invokes tolling/federal statutes; factual disputes remain. | BANA: D.C. three-year limitations applies and bars pre-2013 claims. | Court: Premature to dismiss; factual questions about when enrichment became unlawful and discovery preclude resolution now. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (application of Twombly plausibility standard)
- Bregman v. Perles, 747 F.3d 873 (liberal view of "confers a benefit" in unjust enrichment)
- Georgia Dep't of Cmty. Health v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 79 F.3d 269 (discussing adequacy of legal remedy vs. equitable relief)
- United States ex rel. Purcell v. MWI Corp., 254 F. Supp. 2d 69 (allowing alternative statutory and unjust enrichment claims at motion-to-dismiss stage)
- Rapaport v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury, 59 F.3d 212 (limits on unjust enrichment where benefit went to entity rather than individual)
- Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197 (equitable relief unavailable where adequate legal remedy exists)
- Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235 (standard for Rule 12(b)(6) review in D.C. Circuit)