Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kareem v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


July 27, 2010

HUSSAIN KAREEM, PLAINTIFF,
v.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard W. Roberts United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The pro se plaintiff, Hussain Kareem, sued the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") and Johnson & Freedman II, LLC, a law firm, about matters involving foreclosure proceedings on his home mortgage. The FDIC has filed a motion to dismiss the claims against it, and Kareem has filed an opposition. The FDIC's motion will be granted because the complaint was filed after a statutory filing deadline. Supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims against Johnson & Freedman will be declined, and the entire complaint will be dismissed. Kareem obtained a home mortgage loan on August 17, 2007, from Washington Mutual Bank ("WAMU"). Am. Compl. ¶ 59. The FDIC took receivership of WAMU in September 2008, after the Office of Thrift Supervision declared WAMU insolvent. There are no material facts in genuine dispute with respect to the FDIC's motion. All parties agree that Kareem timely filed a claim with the FDIC, that the FDIC had until July 1, 2009, to make a determination regarding Kareem's claim and that it did not do so, and that Kareem had sixty days from July 1, 2009 to file a civil complaint against the FDIC. FDIC's Mot. to Dismiss ("FDIC Mot.") at 2; Pl.'s Objection to Motion to Dismiss ("Opp'n") ¶¶ 8-9, 13. Kareem mailed the complaint from Atlanta, Georgia on August 31, 2009, and it was received by the clerk's office for filing on September 1, 2009. See Opp'n, Exs. 1A (showing postmark of August 31, 2009), 2A & 3A (showing received date of September 1, 2009).

When a plaintiff files a complaint along with an application to proceed without prepayment of fees, the date the complaint is received by the clerk's office is the date the complaint is deemed filed for purposes of determining whether a complaint is timely filed. Brooks v. Derwinski, 741 F. Supp. 963, 964 (D.D.C. 1990); Mwabira-Simera v. Howard University, 692 F. Supp. 2d 65, 72 (D.D.C. 2010). Sixty days from July 1, 2009, is August 30, 2009, a Sunday. August 31, 2009, was a Monday and not a holiday. Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure obligated Kareem to file his complaint on or before Monday, August 31, 2009. The law does not, as Kareem argues, see Opp'n ¶¶ 37-38, treat the postmark as the date of filing, or allow three days beyond the filing date to file by mail.*fn1

Because Kareem's complaint against the FDIC was not received by the clerk's office for filing on or before August 31, 2009, the claims against the FDIC are time-barred, depriving this court of subject matter jurisdiction. See 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(13)(D) (limiting judicial review to claims that are timely filed). Thus, the claims against the FDIC must be dismissed. This decision results in the dismissal of all claims over which this Court exercised original jurisdiction, and supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of the claims will be declined. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).*fn2 A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.