MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint in this action on June 11, 1991 in Middlesex Superior Court, allеging various torts arising out of the breach of two agreements by First Mutual Bank for Savings (“First Mutuаl”). 1 The first agreement was an alleged June, 1990 workout agreement relating to a defaulted $6.2 million loan for the development of a condominium project in Hull, Massachusetts (“Sunset Cove”). The other agreement was an alleged forbearance agreement relating to defaulted loans secured by mortgages on seven rental properties in Waltham, Massachusetts. The action was later removed to this Court. On June 28, 1991, upon the failure of First Mutual, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) was appointed receiver. As a result, the Plaintiffs were required to submit any claims they may have had against First Mutual to the FDIC’s administrative claims process before they could pursue such claims in this Court. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 1821(d)(6) and 1821(d)(13)(D). The FDIC set October 1, 1991 as the deadline for filing proofs of claim.
The Plaintiffs filed their proof of claim with the FDIC on September 10, 1991, attaching their original Cоmplaint to depict their claims against the FDIC as receiver for First Mutual. After thе FDIC denied the Plaintiffs’ administrative claim, the Plaintiffs advanced their action in this Court, subsеquently filing an Amended Complaint. The FDIC contends that although the first two counts of the Amеnded Complaint were asserted in their entirety in the original Complaint, the remaining eight counts of the Amended Complaint (Counts III through X), either in whole or in part, assеrt new “lender liability” claims against the FDIC based on the new set of facts alleged in the Amended Complaint. As the FDIC notes, the Amended Complaint alleges for the first timе that First Mutual took control of Sunset Cove, coerced the Plaintiffs to makе payments on the Sunset Cove loan and to give First Mutual additional collatеral to secure the loan, and impaired the value of the collateral securing the loan. The FDIC now moves to dismiss Counts III through X of the Amended Complaint on the ground that these claims constitute new claims that were not submitted to the FDIC administrative claim process.
The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enfоrcement Act (“FIR-REA”) provides that no court may exercise jurisdiction over аny claim against the FDIC as receiver unless the claimant has first submitted its claim to thе FDIC administrative claim process.
See
12 U.S.C. §§ 1821(d)(6) and 1821(d)(13)(D);
Marquis v. FDIC,
SO ORDERED.
Notes
. In their original Complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged two counts of breach of. contract, and one count each of the following: unfair and deceptivе acts and practices, fraudulent conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duties and obligations, breach of good faith and fair dealing, interference with advantageous contractual relations, and rescission.