Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

SHAILESH DOSHI v. RESOLUTION TRUST CORP.

March 17, 1993

SHAILESH DOSHI
v.
RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION, as receiver for Atlantic Financial Savings, F.A.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: BY THE COURT; J. WILLIAM DITTER, JR.

 Ditter, J.

 Shailesh Doshi has sued the Resolution Trust Corporation ("RTC") in its capacity as receiver for Atlantic Financial Savings, because Atlantic Financial allegedly permitted Doshi's $ 8,000 check to be deposited in the wrong account. The RTC moves to dismiss Doshi's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, claiming Doshi filed suit one day too late. I must deny the RTC's motion.

 I. Background

 In August, 1988, Doshi issued a check for $ 8,000 payable to North Towne Village Associates ("NTVA") as a deposit on a condominium. Both NTVA and NTA Investment Corporation, although separate corporate entities, had the same officers and directors, and both had accounts at Atlantic Financial. Atlantic Financial allegedly allowed Doshi's check to be deposited in NTA's account instead of in NTVA's account. Doshi discovered this error while trying to get his $ 8,000 deposit back from NTVA. Consequently, he sued NTVA, NTA, their principals, and the bank in state court.

 The RTC subsequently took over as Atlantic Financial's receiver and persuaded Doshi to dismiss his state action against the bank, in order to pursue administrative remedies. Doshi filed his administrative claim August 4, 1992. By letter dated August 26, 1992, the RTC disallowed his claim.

 II. The Federal Suit

 Doshi filed this action on October 26, 1992, under 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(6)(A). That section provides:

 
Before the end of the 60-day period beginning on the earlier of --
 
(i) the end of the period described in paragraph 5(A)(i) [the 180-day period in which the RTC must either allow or disallow the claim] . . .; or
 
(ii) the date of any notice of disallowance of such claim pursuant to parargraph (5)(A)(i),
 
the claimant may . . . file suit on such claim . . . in the district or territorial court of the United States for the district within which the depository institution's principal place of business is located . . . (and such court shall have jurisdiction to hear such claim).

 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(6)(A) (1989). Since the RTC denied Doshi's claim 22 days after it was filed, subsection (ii) applies, and Doshi had 60 days from the date of the RTC's denial notice in which to sue. The denial notice was dated August 26, 1992. *fn1" Sixty days from that date was October 25, 1992, a Sunday. Doshi contends that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a) extends his filing period to the next Monday, *fn2" or October 26, 1992, when he filed his complaint. I agree. I reject the RTC's argument that rule 6(a) does not apply to section 1821(d)(6)(A) because that section is jurisdictional, rather than procedural.

 The RTC relies on Cardente v. Fleet Bank of Maine, Inc., 796 F. Supp. 603 (D. Me. 1992), which specifically addressed the application of rule 6(a) to section 1821(d)(6) and concluded the statute was jurisdictional. *fn3" It held, therefore, that applying rule 6 "to extend the jurisdiction of the Court" would violate Fed. R. Civ. P. 82, which prohibits the federal rules from being "construed to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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