Stewart Title Guaranty Company v. First American Title Insurance Company
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 6 Opposed MOTION to Transfer Case to Middle District of Florida. This action is transferred to the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)[Transferred from txsd on 3/26/2015.]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY
Plaintiff,
v.
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-15-0354
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is Defendant First American Title
Insurance Company's Motion to Transfer Venue (Docket Entry No.6),
seeking transfer of this case to the United States District Court
for
the
Middle
first-to-file
District
rule.
of
After
Florida
under
carefully
the
Fifth Circuit I s
considering
the
parties'
arguments, the records on file, and the applicable law, the court
is persuaded that Defendant's motion should be granted.
"Under the first-to-file rule, when related cases are pending
before two federal courts,
the court in which the case was last
filed may refuse to hear it if the issues raised by the cases
substantially overlap."
174
F.3d 599,
603
Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc.,
(5th Cir.
1999).
The
rule
is
designed to
maximize the values of judicial economy, consistency, and comity
between sister courts.
Id. at 604.
The cases at issue need not be
identical, as long as the court in the later-filed action finds a
substantial overlap in issues and parties.
Syntek Fin. Corp., 121 F.3d 947,
court
950
Save Power Ltd. v.
(5th Cir. 1997).
in the later- filed action finds
the
issues
"Once the
involved are
likely to substantially overlap, it is up to the first-filed court
to resolve the question of whether both cases should proceed."
Excentus Corp. v. Kroger Co., No. 3:10-CV-0483-B, 2010 WL 3606016,
at
*1
(N.D.
Tex.
Sept.
16,
2010)
Hortex, Inc., 439 F.2d 403, 408
F.3d at 950.).
(citing
Mann Mfg.,
(5th Cir. 1971)
i
Inc.
v.
Save Power, 121
To avoid the first-to-file rule, a plaintiff must
demonstrate compelling circumstances that caution against transfer.
White v. Peco Foods,
2008) i see
Inc.,
546 F. Supp. 2d 339,
342
(S.D. Miss.
Mann Mfg., 439 F.2d at 407.
Both cases at issue here stem from a dispute over insurance
policies pertaining to a
Virginia.
On
January
bankrupt power plant proj ect
22,
2015,
Insurance Company ("Old Republic")
Ti tIe Insurance Company
Old
Republic
in West
National
Title
sued Defendant First American
("First American")
in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Old Republic
Nat. Title Ins. Co. v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., No. 8:15-cv-126JSM-EAJ
(M.D.
Fla.
filed Jan.
22,
2015).
Old Republic asserts
various contract and tort claims based on a contract it entered
into with First American that reinsured First American's title
-2 -
insurance policies issued to the power plant and its lenders.l
January 30,
2015,
On
eight days after Old Republic brought suit in
Florida, Stewart Title Guaranty Company ("Stewart") initiated this
action in the Southern District of Texas. 2
Stewart asserts similar
contract and tort claims based on an identical contract it entered
into with First American that reinsured the same title insurance
policies on the power plant property.3
complaints
in the
two cases and is
The court has compared the
satisfied that
substantial overlap in issues and parties.
there
is
a
Therefore, under the
first-to-file rule, the proper course of action is to transfer this
case to the Middle District of Florida.
The court has considered Plaintiff's arguments and concludes
that Plaintiff has not demonstrated compelling circumstances that
counsel against transfer.
Although the plaintiffs in each case
differ, the factual bases and legal theories are nearly identical,
and each case involves the same form contract.
Since each case is
in its early stages, transfer will allow a single court to address
the overlapping issues in both suits.
Because determination of
lSee Complaint I Exhibit 2 to Motion to Transfer Venue, Docket
Entry No. 6-2, pp. 4-15.
20 r iginal Complaint, Docket Entry No.1.
3See id.; American Title Association Tertiary Facultative
Reinsurance Agreement
Exhibit 3 to Motion to Transfer Venue
Docket Entry 6-2, pp. 18-22; American Title Association Tertiary
Facultative Reinsurance Agreement, Exhibit 4 to Motion to Transfer
Venue, Docket Entry No. 6-2, pp. 24-28.
I
I
-3-
whether
these
two
actions
are
so
related
as
to
require
consolidation belongs to the Middle District of Florida, Plaintiff
may raise its arguments against consolidation there.
I
Having determined that this case substantially overlaps with
a case previously filed in the Middle District of Florida,
finding
no
Defendant
compelling
First
circumstances
American
Title
that
Insurance
would
bar
Company's
and
transfer,
Motion
to
Transfer Venue (Docket Entry No.6) is GRANTED, and the action is
TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court
for the Middle
District of Florida, Tampa Division.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 25th day
LAKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?