Freese v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. case brief summary
837 F. Supp. 22 (1993)
CASE FACTS
Defendant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was appointed receiver and liquidating agent for a bank. Defendant issued an order of investigation, and issued administrative subpoenas duces tecum to plaintiffs, former officers and directors of the bank. The subpoenas were identical and sought extensive personal financial information in relation to plaintiffs and their families. Plaintiffs filed an action against defendant, seeking a determination of the subpoenas' validity. One plaintiff filed a separate declaratory judgment action and a motion for summary judgment.
DISCUSSION
OUTCOME
Defendant FDIC's motion for summary enforcement of administrative subpoena and motions to dismiss were denied, and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted in favor of all plaintiffs, where defendant could not freely peruse personal financial records and defendant failed to make even a suggestion of wrongdoing.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law
Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
837 F. Supp. 22 (1993)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation brought a motion for summary enforcement of an
administrative subpoena and a motion to dismiss an action by
plaintiff former officers and directors of a bank, who sought a
determination of the subpoenas' validity. One plaintiff filed a
declaratory judgment action to quash the subpoenas, and a motion for
summary judgment.CASE FACTS
Defendant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was appointed receiver and liquidating agent for a bank. Defendant issued an order of investigation, and issued administrative subpoenas duces tecum to plaintiffs, former officers and directors of the bank. The subpoenas were identical and sought extensive personal financial information in relation to plaintiffs and their families. Plaintiffs filed an action against defendant, seeking a determination of the subpoenas' validity. One plaintiff filed a separate declaratory judgment action and a motion for summary judgment.
DISCUSSION
- The court denied defendant's motion for summary enforcement of the administrative subpoena and motion to dismiss, holding that defendant could not freely peruse personal financial records in order to determine a party's financial ability to satisfy a judgment, and defendant had failed to make even a suggestion of wrongdoing.
- Further, the court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in favor of all plaintiffs.
OUTCOME
Defendant FDIC's motion for summary enforcement of administrative subpoena and motions to dismiss were denied, and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted in favor of all plaintiffs, where defendant could not freely peruse personal financial records and defendant failed to make even a suggestion of wrongdoing.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law
Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
No comments:
Post a Comment