831 F. Supp. 2d 514
D. Mass.2011Background
- FTCA action brought by former real estate developer against United States for FDIC-ordered liquidations of several New England banks during early 1990s real estate collapse.
- Plaintiff alleges negligent management and liquidation by FDIC receivers in Capitol Bank, Bank of New England, Connecticut Bank & Trust, and Maine Savings Bank.
- Administrative FTCA claims filed March 25, 1994 for Capitol Bank only; asserted damages and negligent acts by FDIC personnel, notably David Bigda, as Capitol Bank account officer.
- Amended Complaint alleges Bigda and other FDIC personnel negligently breached duties, failed to follow FDIC Credit Manual, and supervised agents, causing damages.
- Capitol Bank receivership is the focus of asserted fiduciary-duty theory; other receiverships are not referenced in the administrative claims.
- Court grants-in-part and denies-in-part United States’ motion, dismissing all claims except a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim tied to the Capitol Bank foreclosure process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FTCA notice requirement is satisfied for all receiverships. | Plaintiff asserts administrative claims cover all receiverships. | Administrative claims limited to Capitol Bank. | Only Capitol Bank claims survive; others dismissed for lack of notice. |
| Whether the Amended Complaint states a breach of fiduciary duty under Massachusetts law. | Negligence claim encompasses fiduciary-duty theory. | No fiduciary duty unless explicitly pleaded; limits apply. | Fiduciary-duty claim related to Capitol Bank foreclosure survives; other claims dismissed. |
| Whether other FTCA counts (negligent breach, manual noncompliance, negligent supervision) are actionable. | Counts II and III seek tort duties by lender and supervision. | No cognizable tort duties under Massachusetts law or discretionary-function exception. | Dismissed; only Capitol Bank fiduciary-duty claim remains. |
| Whether statute of limitations bars the remaining claim. | Dates alleged close enough to accrual; discovery may affect later. | Accrual occurred before administrative filing; time-bar. | Potentially timely; to be revisited on summary judgment after discovery. |
| Whether discretionary-function exception bars the remaining claim. | Manual provisions may create nondiscretionary duties. | FDIC discretion generally shields such decisions. | Reserve ruling on this issue until close of discovery; not resolved now. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramírez-Carlo v. United States, 496 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2007) (notice requirement and scope of administrative claims)
- Santiago-Ramírez v. Sec’y of the Dept. of Defense, 984 F.2d 16 (1st Cir. 1993) (FTCA notice and administrative claim adequacy)
- Dynamic Image Tech., Inc. v. United States, 221 F.3d 40 (1st Cir. 2000) (notice-of-claim sufficiency standard)
- Aversa v. United States, 99 F.3d 1200 (1st Cir. 1996) (duty of care and existence of tort claims under FTCA)
- Thames Shipyard and Repair Co. v. United States, 350 F.3d 247 (1st Cir. 2003) (discretionary function exception framework)