93 F.Supp.3d 1045
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver of Vantus Bank, Plaintiff
v.
Michael W. DOSLAND, Michael S. Moderski, Arlene T. Curry, Barry E. Backhaus, Gary L. Evans, Ronald A. Jorgenson, Jon G. Cleghorn, and Charles D. Terlouw, Defendants.
Michael W. Dosland, Michael S. Moderski, Arlene T. Curry, Barry E. Backhaus, Gary L. Evans, Ronald A. Jorgenson, Jon G. Cleghorn, and Charles D. Terlouw, Third–Party Plaintiffs
v.
The United States of America, Third–Party Defendant.
No. C 13–4046–MWB.
United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division.
Signed March 6, 2015.
Antony S. Burt, Andrew C. Porter, Michael W. Ott, Schiff Hardin, LLP, Chicago, IL, G. Mark Rice, Stephen D. Marso, Whitfield & Eddy, PLC, Des Moines, IA, Robert L. Wainess, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Arlington, VA, for Plaintiff.
Daniel L. Hartnett, Crary–Huff–Inkster–Sheehan–Ringenberg–Hartnett–Storm, Sioux City, IA, David A. Tank, Megan Flynn, William John Miller, Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, Des Moines, IA, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING THIRD–PARTY DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD–PARTY COMPLAINT
MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.
| TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
| I. | INTRODUCTION | 1048 |
| A. | The Complaint And The Third–Party Complaint | 1048 |
| B. | The Motion To Dismiss And The First Amended Third–Party Complaint | 1049 |
| II. | LEGAL ANALYSIS | 1050 |
| A. | Dismissal For Lack Of Jurisdiction | 1050 |
| 1. | Arguments of the parties | 1050 |
| a. | Original briefing | 1050 |
| b. | Supplemental briefing | 1052 |
| 2. | Applicable standards | 1053 |
| a. | Rule 12(b)(1) challenges to jurisdiction | 1053 |
| b. | Standards applicable to the “discretionary function exception” | 1054 |
| 3. | Application of the standards | 1056 |
| a. | Prong one inquiry: Mandatory requirements | 1056 |
| b. | Prong two inquiry: Exercise of policy-based discretion | 1057 |
| 4. | Summary | 1059 |
| B. | Other Grounds For Dismissal | 1059 |
| III. | CONCLUSION | 1060 |
This case arises from the failure of Vantus Bank in Sioux City, Iowa, on September 4, 2009. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Vantus Bank, (FDIC–R), seeks to recover losses of the Bank from its former directors and officers, the D & O Defendants. In a third-party complaint, the D & O Defendants, in turn, seek an allocation of fault against and contribution from the United States, acting as the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), for any damages that the FDIC–R may recover. The OTS has moved to dismiss the third-party complaint, inter alia, because the actions that the D & O Defendants assert are the basis for the OTS's fault fall within the “discretionary function exception” to liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq.
I. INTRODUCTION
Some of the procedural history relevant to the present motion is set out in my October 7, 2014, Memorandum Opinion And Order (docket no. 95), concerning the D & O Defendants' original August 8, 2014, Motion For Jurisdictional Discovery (docket no. 71). Much of the subsequent procedural history is set out in my February 11, 2015, Memorandum Opinion And Order Regarding D & O Defendants' Motion For Additional Jurisdictional Discovery (docket no. 129). Therefore, I will not repeat all of the pertinent procedural history here.
A. The Complaint And The Third–Party Complaint
On May 20, 2013, the FDIC–R filed its Complaint (docket no. 2) against the D & O Defendants, pursuant to the Financial...
