Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp., No. 10-56068 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs appealed the district court's judgment dismissing her claims against Fannie Mae, contending that the district court lacked jurisdiction over their claims. The court affirmed, concluding that, under the rule announced in American National Red Cross v. S.G., the sue-and-be sued clause in Fannie Mae's federal charter confers federal question jurisdiction over claims brought by or against Fannie Mae. Accordingly, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims.
Court Description: Federal Question Jurisdiction. Affirming the district court’s dismissal of claims against the Federal National Mortgage Association, or “Fannie Mae,” the panel held that Fannie Mae’s federal corporate charter confers federal question jurisdiction over claims brought by or against Fannie Mae. Agreeing with the D.C. Circuit, the panel held that under American Red Cross v. S.G., 505 U.S. 247 (1992), the sue- and-be-sued clause in the charter confers subject matter jurisdiction because the clause specifically mentions the federal courts. Dissenting, District Judge Stein wrote that under a 1954 charter amendment, Fannie Mae’s charter confers only corporate capacity to sue and be sued, and that subject matter jurisdiction must come from some other provision of law.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.