First Missouri Bank v. Chicago Title Insurance Company

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full Order) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to remand or alternative motion to transfer 7 and its motion for joinder 9 are denied. By separate order this case will be set for a telephone Rule 16 scheduling conference. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 7/12/16. (EAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
NORTHERN DIVISION
FIRST MISSOURI BANK,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16 CV 5 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff First Missouri Bank filed this case in the Circuit Court of Linn
County, Missouri, alleging breach of contract. After defendant Chicago Title
Insurance Company timely and properly removed the case on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction, plaintiff sought to add a non-diverse party and remand the matter to
state court. In the alternative, plaintiff sought transfer to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri. Having fully reviewed the parties’
briefs and considered their arguments, I will deny all the plaintiff’s motions and
will set this case for a scheduling conference.
Discussion
In this case plaintiff seeks to recover under a title insurance policy. Plaintiff
does not dispute that the case was properly removed to this court. Plaintiff is a
citizen of Missouri and defendant is a citizen of Nebraska and Florida; the amount

in controversy exceeds $75,000. Plaintiff’s original petition sued only Chicago
Title Insurance Company, and alleged, among other things, that Chicago Title was
the successor in interest to TICOR Title Insurance, which had issued the title
insurance policy at issue. The petition alleged that Community Land Title “was a
small agency that generated policies on behalf of the Defendant. On information
and belief, Community Land Title has gone out of business, and is no longer
operating as a going concern.”
After defendant removed the case, plaintiff filed a “Motion for Joinder”
seeking to add Community Title, who is a Missouri Citizen, as a defendant. It also
filed a “Motion to Remand to State Court/Alternative Motion to Transfer Venue to
Western District of Missouri.” In its reply brief in support of the motions plaintiff
provided, for the first time, its proposed amended petition.
Plaintiff’s original petition alleges that Chicago Title breached the title
insurance policy by failing to pay a valid claim, and seeks damages, specific
performance, additional damages for vexatious refusal to pay, and a declaratory
judgment. The proposed amended petition changed almost nothing of the
substantive allegations, but omitted the allegation that Community Title was no
longer in operation. The proposed amended complaint sometimes, but not always,
changed the word “defendant” to “defendants,” but it did not allege that
Community Title was anything other than a broker. It continues to allege that the
-2-

title policy at issue was issued by TICOR, to whom Chicago Title is the successor
in interest.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), a court may deny joinder if after removal a
plaintiff seeks to jon additional defendants whose joinder would defeat diversity
jurisdiction. The addition of this non-diverse defendant would defeat diversity
jurisdiction. There is no evidence or indication that it is a defendant who must be
joined if feasible under Rule 19, Fed. R. Civ. P. Defendant Chicago Title has
admitted that it is a successor in interest to TICOR, who issued the title policy at
issue in the case, and so any relief to which plaintiff is entitled can be accorded
among the existing parties. I will therefore deny the motion for joinder and the
motion to remand.
I will also deny the motion to transfer venue. Plaintiff chose to file suit
within the Eastern District of Missouri. Now that it is in federal court, it
apparently prefers the Western District of Missouri to this Court, but that is an
insufficient reason to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a). As plaintiff itself
alleged, its own principal place of business is within the Eastern District of
Missouri. Plaintiff has not provided any basis for granting the motion to transfer,
and I will deny the motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to remand or alternative
-3-

motion to transfer [7] and its motion for joinder [9] are denied.
By separate order this case will be set for a telephone Rule 16 scheduling
conference.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 12th day of July, 2016.

-4-