
    WESTWIND MERANTO, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver on behalf of Silver State Bank, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-15962.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 9, 2014.
    
    Filed April 14, 2014.
    Kerry Peter Faughnan, Esquire, Law Offices of Kerry P. Faughnan, North Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    J. Scott Watson, Counsel, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Arlington, VA, Joni Jamison, Robert R. McCoy, Morris Peterson, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Westwind Meranto, LLC, filed this declaratory judgment action seeking various forms of relief. The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. “Our review of the district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) or Rule 12(b)(6) is de novo.” Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir.2013). We affirm.

Westwind failed to exhaust the FDIC’s mandatory administrative claims process. Intercontinental Travel Mktg., Inc. v. FDIC, 45 F.3d 1278, 1282 (9th Cir.1994) (“No court has jurisdiction over [a] claim until the exhaustion of this administrative process.”). The FDIC published notice that any claim against Silver State Bank must be submitted in writing by the claims bar date of December 10, 2008. Westwind received notice of the receivership before the claims bar date. And although West-wind filed suit in state court against Silver State Bank on October 23, 2008, it did not submit a claim to the FDIC until July 11, 2011, more than two and a half years after the claims bar date. Therefore, we lack subject matter jurisdiction over West-wind’s claims. Id. at 1284 (“We read the claims bar date to be a jurisdictional requirement.”).

Westwind’s failure to exhaust cannot be excused by the FDIC’s failure to mail notice, the FDIC’s decision to publish in newspapers rather than on its website or in a press release, or Westwind’s contention that the FDIC knew or should have known about its claim based on the state court action. Id. at 1284-86; see also 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(3). Finally, Westwind has not alleged affirmative misconduct or intentional disregard of the mail notice requirement. Id. at 1285.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     