Kaye Financial Corporation v. Ticor Title Agency of Arizona, Inc. et al
Filing
24
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 15 Defendants' Second Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (AChu)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVSION
KAYE FINANCIAL
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
2:17-CV-12427-TGB
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS' SECOND
MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. 15)
TICOR TITLE AGENCY OF
ARIZONA, INC., FIDELITY
NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY,
LLC,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ second motion to
dismiss (Dkt. 15). Plaintiff filed a response (Dkt. 17) and Defendant filed
a reply (Dkt. 19). The Court held a hearing on Defendants’ motion on
September 17, 2018. For the reasons stated on the record during the
hearing, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART.
Specifically, Plaintiff's breach of contract indemnification claim
(Count 1) can proceed, as it is not time barred. Plaintiff's tort related
claims (Counts 2 through 6) are dismissed without prejudice.
Defendants’ argument regarding dismissing the allegedly improperly
named defendant, Fidelity National Title Company, and argument to
change the name of Ticor Title Agency of Arizona Inc. are denied without
prejudice. Defendants may renew those arguments at the conclusion of
discovery, but the Court encourages the parties to reach a mutual
agreement on the correct names of the defendants. Finally, Plaintiff’s
claim to recover attorney’s fees is dismissed.
SO ORDERED.
DATED this 4th day of June, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 29, 2018
2
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on
October 29, 2018, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification
to each party.
s/A. Chubb
Case Manager
3
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?