Meritage Homes of Nevada v. FDIC, No. 12-15663 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseThis case arose when Meritage submitted an administrative claim to the FDIC. The FDIC disallowed Meritage's administrative claim and Meritage then filed suit. Meritage obtained a default judgment against the FDIC and the FDIC provided Meritage with a receiver's certificate in the amount of the judgment. The FDIC also filed with the district court a Satisfaction of Judgment. Meritage sought to have the district court strike the FDIC's Satisfaction of Judgment and instead direct the FDIC to pay the judgment in cash. Subsequently, on appeal, Meritage challenged the district court's judgment and challenged orders denying its motion to strike or, in the alternative, issue a summons to certain third parties to this action and denying its motion for reconsideration. The court held that the district court's denial of Meritage's request for a summons was to be reviewed for clear error. On the merits, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the receiver's certificate satisfied the judgment against the FDIC. The court also held that the district court did not commit clear error in declining to issue a summons to Rescon and Stearns. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Satisfaction of Judgment. The panel affirmed the district court’s orders in an appeal brought by Meritage Homes of Nevada, Inc. challenging the denial of its motion to strike or in the alternative issue a summons to certain third parties to the action, and denying Meritage’s motion for reconsideration. Meritage obtained a default judgment against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), and the FDIC provided Meritage with a receiver’s certificate in the amount of the judgment. Meritage sought to have the district court strike the FDIC’s satisfaction of judgment and instead direct the FDIC to pay the judgment “in cash.” Alternatively, Meritage requested that the district court issue a summons to a pair of third parties to the action, Rescon and Stearns. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the receiver’s certificate satisfied the judgment against the FDIC. The panel also held that the district court did not commit clear error in declining to issue a summons to third parties Rescon and Stearns.
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.