William J. Paatalo v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. and WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM J. PAATALO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. and
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-35818
D.C. No. 6:15-cv-01420-AA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 5, 2018**
Portland, Oregon
Before: M. SMITH and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and HELLERSTEIN,***
District Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant William J. Paatalo appeals from the district court’s order
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein, Senior United States District
Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
FILED
JUN 7 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
granting summary judgment to Defendants-Appellees JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
(Chase), and Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. (WaMu). Because the district court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action, we vacate the judgment below
and dismiss Paatalo’s action without prejudice. See Kelly v. Fleetwood Enters.,
Inc., 377 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004).
Paatalo did not exhaust his claim for declaratory relief through the
administrative claims process under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery,
and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA). See 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(3)–(10).
Because “FIRREA strips courts of jurisdiction over claims that have not been
exhausted through this process,” Rundgren v. Wash. Mut. Bank, FA, 760 F.3d
1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(13)(D)); see also Benson v.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 1207, 1209 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[A] claim
asserted against a purchasing bank based on the conduct of a failed bank must be
exhausted under FIRREA.”), the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
over Paatalo’s claim.
VACATED and DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --