MERITAGE HOMES OF NEVADA, INC., FKA MTH-Homes Nevada Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant,
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver for First National Bank of Nevada, Successor-in-Interest to First National Bank of Arizona; INCA CAPITAL FUND 37 LLC, Defendants-Appellees
Argued and Submitted, San Francisco, California:
March 11, 2014.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01950-PMP-RJJ. Philip M. Pro, Senior District Judge, Presiding.
Alexander Arpad (argued) and Christopher H. Byrd, Fennemore Craig Jones Vargas, P.C., Las Vegas, Nevada, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Joseph Brooks (argued), Kathryn R. Norcross, and Lawrence H. Richmond, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Arlington, Virginia, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: J. Clifford Wallace, M. Margaret McKeown, and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Wallace.
WALLACE, Senior Circuit Judge:
Appellant Meritage Homes of Nevada, Inc. (Meritage) appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges 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 crux of the dispute is whether the district court abused its discretion when it allowed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to satisfy a judgment against it with a receiver's certificate rather than with cash. The district court had jurisdiction under 12 U.S.C. § 1819(b)(2) & 28 U.S.C. § 1331, we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
This case began in 2009, when Meritage submitted an administrative claim to the FDIC in its capacity as receiver for the First National Bank of Nevada (First National). In its administrative claim, Meritage asserted that it had provided certain services to INCA Capital Fund 37, LLC (Inca) pursuant to agreements that also involved First National's predecessor bank, which had " agreed to timely perform and cure all unfulfilled obligations of Inca" under the agreements. As a result of these agreements, Meritage stated that First National was " justly indebted" to it.
The FDIC disallowed Meritage's administrative claim. It explained its decision by stating that the documentation for the claim had not provided " proof of a guarantee or promise to fulfill the obligations of the borrower." In response, Meritage filed this action in the District of Nevada. In its complaint, Meritage brought various claims against both Inca and the FDIC. In particular, Meritage alleged that it had been " damaged by [First National's] breach of the [agreements discussed above]" ; that the FDIC, " as receiver for [First National]," was " liable for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing due to [First National's] failure to satisfy all obligations of Inca under [one of the agreements]; and that the FDIC had been " unjustly enriched by Meritage's valuable, uncompensated work" as a " result of non-payment by [First National] . . . for which the FDIC is now liable."
When neither the FDIC nor Inca responded to the ...