Armando R. Venegas v. Indymac Federal Bank, Fsb;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARMANDO R. VENEGAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK, FSB; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-17102
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01236-JAM-
GGH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Armando R. Venegas, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court
judgment dismissing his state law action arising out of a foreclosure. We have
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-17102 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. King v. California, 784
F.2d 910, 912 (9th Cir. 1986). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
The district court properly dismissed defendants Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (“FDIC”) and IndyMac Federal Bank for lack of jurisdiction because
Venegas failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by filing a claim with the
FDIC prior to filing his complaint. See 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(13)(D); Henderson v.
Bank of New England, 986 F.2d 319, 321 (9th Cir. 1993) (“A claimant must . . .
first complete the claims process before seeking judicial review.”).
The district court also dismissed defendant NDEX West based on Venegas’s
failure to exhaust. The exhaustion requirements of 12 U.S.C. § 1821, however, do
not apply to NDEX West because it was not placed in receivership. See 12 U.S.C.
§ 1821(d)(13)(D) (requiring exhaustion prior to judicial review of claims against
the assets of a failed institution for which the FDIC has been appointed receiver).
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment as to defendant NDEX West and
remand for further proceedings.
Venegas’s contentions concerning other appeals are unpersuasive.
Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --