STEVEN WALTNER V. FDIC, No. 11-35726 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 11 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEVEN T. WALTNER; SARAH V. WALTNER, No. 11-35726 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00662-RAJ Plaintiffs - Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank FA; DOES, 11000, inclusive, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 19, 2013** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Steven T. and Sarah V. Waltner appeal pro se from the district court s * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). summary judgment in their action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Intercontinental Travel Mktg. v. FDIC, 45 F.3d 1278, 1282 (9th Cir. 1994), and we affirm. The district court properly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Waltners action because the Waltners failed to file a timely administrative claim under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 ( FIRREA ). See 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d); Intercontinental Travel Mktg., 45 F.3d at 1282-86 (no jurisdiction exists if a claimant does not properly exhaust the FIRREA s administrative process, and the failure to receive notice of the administrative claims bar date does not exempt a claimant from the requirement to file a timely administrative claim). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Waltners motion to strike evidence. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1261 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Waltners motion for reconsideration because the motion was untimely under the local rules and the Waltners failed to show grounds warranting reconsideration. See id. at 1262-63 (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)); see also W.D. Wash. R. 7(h)(1)-(2) (setting forth 2 11-35726 deadline and grounds for reconsideration). AFFIRMED. 3 11-35726
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.
