In re Countrywide Financial Corp. Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation
966 F. Supp. 2d 1031
C.D. Cal.2013Background
- FDIC as receiver for three failed banks (Franklin Bank, Guaranty Bank, Security Savings Bank) and their associated MBS-related securities claims against Countrywide and related entities.
- August 26, 2013 orders held FIRREA 1821(d)(14) does not preempt TSA and NSA repose periods; state repose matters dismissed.
- FDIC-SSB sought interlocutory review of Security Savings Bank ruling under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); motion denied.
- Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration in three related cases; issues centered on preemption framework, statutory interpretation of 'statute of limitations' and the role of repose.
- The court relied on Guaranty Bank as the guiding decision and denied reconsideration; FDIC-SSB’s interlocutory appeal denied as not advancing termination of litigation.
- The numeric procedural posture shows three related cases proceeding in a Countrywide MBS MDL, with multiple state-law repose issues at stake.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FIRREA’s extender preempts state statutes of repose. | Plaintiff argues extender preempts state repose under preemption framework. | Guaranty Bank supports that preemption depends on Congress intent and is not clear. | Preemption framework applies; no clear intent to preempt repose. |
| Whether the presumption against preemption applies to FIRREA extender. | Presumption against preemption applies given states’ historic regulation. | Concludes presumption applies and FDIC failed to show clear intent to preempt. | Presumption against preemption applies; no clear manifest preemption shown. |
| Whether NCUA/Nomura supplies a material change of law warranting reconsideration. | NCUA/Nomura constitutes new controlling law. | Decision is non-binding and does not address repose; not a material change. | Not a material change; reconsideration denied. |
| Whether the court committed clear error in dismissing state claims on preemption grounds. | Court erred in applying preemption to repose while briefing was lacking. | Court fully briefed and followed Guaranty Bank preemption framework. | No clear error; orders sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- NCUA v. Nomura Home Equity Loan, 727 F.3d 1246 (10th Cir. 2013) (addressed preemption and repose distinctions; non-binding on California repose question)
- FHFA v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 900 F.Supp.2d 1055 (C.D.Cal. 2012) (preemption framework for extender statute in context of state repose)
- Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1991) (federalism concerns; preemption requires clear intent)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (U.S. 1996) (presumption against preemption in traditionally state-regulated areas)
- New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1995) (presumption against preemption guiding analysis)
- FHFA v. UBS Americas, Inc., 858 F.Supp.2d 306 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (courts addressing extender statute interpretations across circuits)