Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Filby, E.
149 A.3d 347
Pa. Super. Ct.2016Background
- First Cornerstone Bank filed an ejectment action and obtained summary judgment; Filby appealed and the trial court also struck his counterclaims as an improper collateral attack on a prior sheriff’s sale.
- Filby filed his notice of appeal on March 9, 2016 alleging the court erred by treating his counterclaims as a collateral attack.
- First Cornerstone Bank became insolvent and the FDIC was appointed receiver; this Court substituted the FDIC as appellee.
- While the state appeal was pending, the FDIC, as receiver, filed a notice of removal to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and served the notice on Filby and the Superior Court.
- The FDIC relied on its statutory removal authority (12 U.S.C. § 1819(b)(2)(B)); the FDIC complied with federal removal procedures (28 U.S.C. § 1446).
- The Superior Court concluded that, because removal was properly effected, it lacked jurisdiction and stayed the appeal pending final disposition or remand from federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FDIC as receiver can remove a pending state appellate action to federal court | Filby argued removal was improper and Superior Court should decide merits of appeal | FDIC argued it has statutory removal power to remove actions in state court after substitution as receiver | Court held FDIC’s removal complied with federal procedures and removal divested the Superior Court of jurisdiction; appeal stayed pending federal disposition |
| Effect of filing notice of removal on state-court proceedings | Filby argued state appellate process should continue despite removal | FDIC argued filing notice of removal operates to transfer jurisdiction to federal court under §1446(d) | Court held removal effects a statutory stay of state proceedings; Superior Court must await federal court decision or remand |
| Whether Superior Court properly struck Filby’s counterclaims as collateral attack on sheriff’s sale | Filby argued his counterclaims were permissible and not an improper collateral attack | Bank/FDIC maintained counterclaims improperly attacked final sheriff’s sale and thus were correctly struck | Court did not decide merits of counterclaims because removal divested the court of jurisdiction; stayed appeal rather than ruling on substantive issue |
| Appropriate court action after removal from state appellate court | Filby sought continued state appellate review | FDIC sought federal forum and enforcement of its removal rights | Court stayed and relinquished panel jurisdiction, directing FDIC to notify the Superior Court of any federal disposition or remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Wenrick v. Schloemann-Siemag Aktiengesellschaft, 522 A.2d 52 (Pa. Super. 1987) (filing for removal effects a statutory stay of state proceedings)
- Wenrick v. Schloemann-Siemag Aktiengesellschaft, 564 A.2d 1244 (Pa. 1989) (affirming aspects of removal/stay principles)
- Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Keating, 12 F.3d 314 (1st Cir. 1993) (FDIC as receiver may remove pending state appeals to federal district court)
- Matter of Meyerland Co., 960 F.2d 512 (5th Cir. 1992) (en banc) (confirming FDIC’s broad statutory removal authority)
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. Nernberg, 3 F.3d 62 (3d Cir. 1993) (permitted similarly-situated receiver to remove a case pending in the Pennsylvania Superior Court)