Antunes v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Background

Lionel Antunes, representing himself, filed a complaint on September 25, 2024. After issuing a summons, the court ordered him to file proof that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) had been properly served before the 90-day service deadline expired. The court said Antunes had not shown that proper service occurred.

The record showed that Antunes sent the FDIC a notice of lawsuit and request to waive service. That document stated that it was neither a summons nor an official court notice. Antunes also submitted tracking information, but the record did not show that anyone other than Antunes attempted service. The court concluded that he appeared to have tried to serve the FDIC himself, did not serve a summons, and did not show good cause for failing to serve the FDIC within 90 days.

Court’s Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 requires a plaintiff to serve the summons with a copy of the complaint and makes the plaintiff responsible for completing service within the time allowed by Rule 4(m). Rule 4(m) generally requires dismissal when service is not completed within 90 days, unless the plaintiff shows good cause for an extension. Rule 4(c)(2) also provides that a plaintiff may not personally serve the defendant.

The court stated that, even if the FDIC had been properly served, the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) supplied an independent basis for dismissal. The court relied on a prior related proceeding involving Antunes, identified in the opinion by docket number No. 23-cv-06296-HSG, in which the court determined that a nearly identical case was barred by FIRREA.

The court explained that FIRREA allows the FDIC, when acting as receiver for a failed bank, to succeed to the failed institution’s rights, titles, powers, and privileges. It also cited 12 U.S.C. § 1821(j), which generally prevents a court from taking action that restrains or affects the FDIC’s exercise of its powers or functions as receiver, unless the FDIC requests that action. The court concluded that the relief Antunes sought—declaratory relief preventing the FDIC from transferring, selling, liquidating, or otherwise disposing of certain Newport Group trust-fund balances—would restrain the FDIC’s receivership powers.

Disposition

The court dismissed the case for lack of service of process and because the underlying case was barred by FIRREA. The court stated that, because Antunes could not overcome the FIRREA bar, it dismissed the case with prejudice. The order terminated the case, vacated the January 9, 2025 case-management conference, and directed the clerk to close the case.