Steven T. Waltner; Sarah V. Waltner v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank FA

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN T. WALTNER; SARAH V.
WALTNER,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION, as Receiver for
Washington Mutual Bank FA; DOES, 1-
1000, inclusive,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-35726
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00662-RAJ
MEMORANDUM*
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
FILED
DEC 11 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

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
11-35726 2

-- 2 of 3 --

deadline and grounds for reconsideration).
AFFIRMED.
11-35726 3

-- 3 of 3 --