Kareem v. Federal Deposit Insurance
811 F. Supp. 2d 279
D.D.C.2011Background
- Kareem, a pro se plaintiff, sued the FDIC and a law firm over foreclosure-related matters.
- The court previously dismissed all claims against the FDIC as time-barred because the complaint was not timely received by the clerk by August 31, 2009.
- The dismissal rested on a determination that the FDIC had until July 1, 2009 to decide, and Kareem had 60 days to file a civil action after that, with filing deemed timely only if received by the clerk by August 31, 2009.
- Kareem filed a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e), recharacterized here as a Rule 60(b) motion, which the court denied.
- Kareem also sought judgment as a matter of law, a set-aside/vacate judgment, or a new trial; the court found these motions either not ripe or moot due to prior dismissal.
- The court entered final orders denying reconsideration and the other motions, leaving the case dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kareem's complaint against the FDIC was timely filed. | Kareem contends filings and FDIC timelines render his complaint timely. | FDIC timing controls under 18 U.S.C. §1821(d)(6)(B) and filing is deemed timely only when received by the clerk by August 31, 2009. | No; the court affirmed dismissal for lack of timely filing. |
| Whether the reconsideration motion was properly treated under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). | Plaintiff argues for Rule 59(e) relief. | Motion was filed more than 28 days after judgment; thus governed by Rule 60(b). | Motion analyzed under Rule 60(b); denial affirmed. |
| Whether the motion for judgment as a matter of law, set aside/vacate, or new trial was ripe or proper. | Seeks relief under Rule 50 or Rule 59 to challenge dismissal. | Case dismissed before trial; Rule 50/59 motions are not ripe or applicable. | Denied as not ripe or applicable; only Rule 60(b) analysis applied. |
| Whether entry of default or hearing requests were moot. | Requests default judgment or hearing. | Case already dismissed; moot. | Denied as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- S.E.C. v. Bilzerian, 729 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 2010) (discretion in deciding Rule 60(b) motions; 28-day window for Rule 59(e))
- United States v. Zaia, 751 F. Supp. 2d 132 (D.D.C. 2010) (filing date is date of receipt by court under Rule 5; 28-day window rule applicability)
- Mwabira-Simera v. Howard Univ., 692 F. Supp. 2d 65 (D.D.C. 2010) (timeliness for filing based on receipt; mailbox rule not applicable here)
- Nickols v. F.D.I.C., 9 F. Supp. 2d 137 (D. Conn. 1998) (regulates FDIC filing procedures and related timing outside adjudicatory FDIC proceedings)
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (prison mailbox rule; non-prisoner filing context distinguished)