slip op. (D.Wyo. November 25, 1992) (unpublished) (1992 WL 455432) ("affirmative defenses asserted by defendants seek a determination of rights with respect to assets of a depository institution” and therefore the court lacks jurisdiction over them). Resolution Trust Co. v. Scaletty, 810 F.Supp. 1505 (D.Kan.1992) (mitigation of damages defense stricken, following McGinnis in part); Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Milton L. Coulter Trust, No. 91-CV-1047-J, slip op. (D.Wyo. September 22, 1992) (unpublished) (1992 WL 455433) (court without subject matter jurisdiction over mitigation of damages and offset asserted by way of affirmative defenses because they "will affect the assets of the receivership”). But Cf. Resolution Trust Corp. v. Ryan, 801 F.Supp. 1545, 1555 (S.D.Miss.1992) (<HOLDING>); Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Vernon
holding alvarez and garza were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on their affirmative defense of limitations when they did not negate the discovery rule in their summary judgment motions holding that one claim was not preempted because it did not allege the violation of duties created by any welfare plan but a violation of duties as a past employer holding that neglect was not excusable where the defendants did not do all that they were required to do after they received the summons and complaint in that they did not contact a lawyer or make any other arrangements with respect to their defense holding that similar doj guidelines not mandated by statute or the constitution do not confer substantive rights on any party holding that dismissal of counterclaims which are strictly defensive in nature and do not seek any monetary or affirmative relief of any kind is not mandated by  1821d13d but that the counterclaims were not proper declaratory judgment claims because they simply sought an adjudication that defendants did not violate their duties as bank officers and directors