Rundgren v. Washington Mutual Bank, FA

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that FIRREA “bars judicial review of any non-exhausted claim, monetary or nonmonetary, which is susceptible of resolution through the claims procedure,”’ including claims for declaratory relief
• concluding that plaintiffs’ claim against Chase for a declaratory judgment voiding a loan plaintiffs received from WMB, and which Chase later acquired from the FDIC through the Purchase and Assumption Agreement, was “susceptible of resolution through FIR-REA’s administrative procedure”
• stating that a request for a declaratory judgment is “susceptible of resolution” through FIRREA’s claims procedure
• explaining that plaintiffs sought to void the loan based on WMB’s fraudulent acts
• holding under nearly identical facts that plaintiffs’ claims were related to WMB’s acts and omissions, and that a “claimant cannot circumvent [FIRREA’s] exhaustion requirement by suing the purchasing bank based on the conduct of the failed institution”
• noting that FIRREA does not bar true “affirmative defenses,” but FIRREA did bar the “plaintiffs bringing an independent action against [Chase], raising common law and statutory claims based on WaMu’s alleged fraud”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).