Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bkwspokane LLC v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

United States District Court, E.D. Washington

May 16, 2014

BKWSPOKANE LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as receiver for Bank of Whitman, Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

THOMAS O. RICE, District Judge.

BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration to Amend/Clarify Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 137). This matter was submitted for consideration without oral argument. The Court has reviewed the briefing and the record and files herein, and is fully informed.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff BKWSPOKANE ("BKW") seeks reconsideration of the Court's April 2, 2014, Order on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 134), denying Plaintiff's motion and granting the motion of Defendant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC").

FACTS

Before its closure, Bank of Whitman ("BOW") was conducting business in several Eastern Washington locations, including the building at the center of the instant dispute, 618 West Riverside Avenue in Spokane ("the Building"). Plaintiff BKW purchased the entire building from BOW and entered into a long-term triple net lease back Master Lease Agreement with BOW.

On August 5, 2011, the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions closed BOW and appointed Defendant FDIC as receiver. The FDIC entered into an agreement with Columbia State Bank ("CSB") under which CSB agreed to acquire certain portions of BOW and was granted by the FDIC an option period of 90 days to determine if it would also assume or reject certain contract and lease obligations, including the Master Lease with over 20-years remaining on that obligation. CSB ultimately decided not to assume the Master Lease. On February 27, 2012, the FDIC notified BKW that it was repudiating the contract effective June 30, 2012.

BKW sued the FDIC, alleging inter alia, breach of contract, and that though FDIC was empowered to repudiate the lease within a reasonable period under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act ("FIRREA"), 12 U.S.C. §1821(e) et seq., its repudiation was untimely. On the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, the Court granted judgment for Defendant, finding that the repudiation was timely.

In the motion now before the Court, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). ECF No. 137 at 1. For the reasons discussed below, the motion will be denied.

DISCUSSION

A court may review a motion for reconsideration under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or Rule 60(b) (relief from judgment). Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). "Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." Id. at 1263. Reconsideration is properly denied when the movant "present[s] no arguments... that had not already been raised" in the underlying motion. Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1989).

BKW moves the court for reconsideration, arguing that the Court should reconsider the its dismissal of BKW's claim without consideration of BKW's right to damages suffered in reliance on the Master Lease Agreement, ECF No. 137 at 4. Plaintiff argues that it "purchased the property located at 618 West Riverside, Spokane, Washington for $13, 980, 000 based solely on the premise that Bank of Whitman would enter into and properly perform under the Master Lease Agreement, " and that but for this agreement BKW would not have agreed to purchase the building. Id. Plaintiff contends that the Court entirely disregarded this argument in its order, and that FIRREA limits recoverable damages to "actual direct compensatory damages, " 12 U.S.C. § 1821(e)(3)(A), which include reliance damages. ECF No. 137 at 4.

As the Court explained in its order on the parties cross motions for summary judgment, ECF No. 134, under FIRREA the FDIC, as receiver has, inter alia, the authority to repudiate contracts and leases:

In addition to any other rights a conservator or receiver may have, the conservator or receiver for any insured depository institution may ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.