MTB Enterprises, Inc. v. ADC Venture 2011-2, LLC, 780 F.3d 1256

In 2007 MTB Enterprises entered a $17 million loan/credit arrangement with ANB Financial to develop property in Idaho; ANB later failed and stopped paying the final $6 million.
The FDIC was appointed receiver and transferred ANB’s assets/liabilities to ADC Venture 2011–2, LLC.
MTB filed an administrative claim with the FDIC and a 2008 lawsuit that was transferred to the Western District of Arkansas and then voluntarily dismissed.
In 2012 MTB sued ADC Venture in the District of Idaho alleging ADC assumed ANB’s loan obligations; the district court dismissed, finding no assumption of liability.
On appeal ADC argued for the first time that the suit was in the wrong district under FIRREA’s §1821(d)(6)(A)(ii); the Ninth Circuit considered whether that provision is jurisdictional.
The Ninth Circuit concluded §1821(d)(6)(A)(ii) is jurisdictional and dismissed MTB’s suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because MTB filed in the District of Idaho rather than the two districts authorized by FIRREA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether FIRREA §1821(d)(6)(A)(ii) is jurisdictional or venue	MTB acknowledged circuit law indicates it is jurisdictional but argued equitable/transfer history excused compliance	ADC contended the statutory venue rule is jurisdictional and bars suits filed outside the prescribed districts	The provision is jurisdictional; failure to file in an authorized district requires dismissal
Whether prior filing/transferred suit satisfied FIRREA for later suits	MTB argued earlier 2008 filing (transferred to W.D. Ark.) should excuse later compliance	ADC argued each federal suit must independently comply with §1821(d)(6)(A)(ii)	Court held prior filing does not satisfy §1821(d)(6)(A)(ii) for subsequent suits

Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (Sup. Ct.) (clarifies when statutory limits are jurisdictional)
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (Sup. Ct.) (requires clear congressional statement to make statutory rule jurisdictional)
Benson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 1207 (9th Cir.) (describing FIRREA’s purposes and procedures)
McCarthy v. FDIC, 348 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir.) (discussing FIRREA’s goals for winding up failed banks)
Lloyd v. FDIC, 22 F.3d 335 (1st Cir.) (treating §1821(d)(6)(A) as jurisdictional)
In re Lewis, 398 F.3d 735 (6th Cir.) (holding jurisdiction-stripping provision applies to §1821(d) as a whole)
Rundgren v. Washington Mut. Bank, 760 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir.) (treating FIRREA administrative-exhaustion rules as jurisdictional)
Miller v. FDIC, 738 F.3d 836 (7th Cir.) (treating §1821(d)(6)(B) time limit as jurisdictional)