GERMINARO et al v. LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION et al

Filing 45

MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that, for reasons stated more fully within said Order, Defendants Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation and Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Corporations Motion to Dismiss 34 is denied, with prejudice; that Plaintiffs s hall comply with said Local Rule and file their RICO Case Statement no later than 11/4/14; Defendants Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation and Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Corporation shall file an Answer to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint no later than 11/25/14; that the oral argument set for 10/23/14 (at 1:30 PM), is cancelled. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 10/21/14. (jg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOSEPH J. GERMINARO, an
individual, and GABRIELLA P.
GERMINARO, an individual,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE
CORPORATION, a Nebraska corporation,
a/k/a LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY, COMMONWEALTH LAND
TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a
Nebraska corporation, and DOES 1 through
100,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 14-1202
Judge Nora Barry Fischer

MEMORANDUM ORDER
AND NOW, this 21st day of October, 2014, upon consideration of Defendants Lawyers
Title Insurance Corporation and Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Corporation’s Motion to
Dismiss (Docket No. [34]), Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition thereto (Docket No. [38]), the
documents submitted in said Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice (Docket No. [34-2]) and
the Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice (Docket No. [39]), said Defendants’ Reply in Support
of their Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. [43]), and said Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’
Request for Judicial Notice (Docket No. [44]),
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said Defendants’ Motion (Docket No. [34]) is
DENIED, with prejudice. In support of this ORDER, the Court notes:
It is clear that this matter was transferred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
To that end, this Court must apply the choice of law principles of the transferor court, the United
States District Court for the Central District of California. Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612,
1

639 (1964). Van Dusen established when an action is transferred pursuant to § 1404(a) on motion
of the defendant, the transferee court must apply the law of the initial forum. Id. As the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held, the Van Dusen rule applies to sua sponte
transfers. Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fogel, 656 F.3d 167, 171 (3d Cir. 2011), as amended (Dec. 9,
2011) (citing Ferens v. John Deere Co., 494 U.S. 516, 530-31 (1990). Here, Defendants moved
the Central District of California court to transfer this matter to Pennsylvania state court pursuant
to the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens. Judge Christina Snyder of the Central
District of California ordered the parties to brief the issue of a § 1404(a) transfer, and following
same, she transferred the instant action to the Western District of Pennsylvania. Whether this
transfer is construed as a sua sponte transfer or a transfer based on motion of Defendants, this
Court must apply the choice of law principles of the transferor forum, California.
Despite the holdings in Van Dusen, Ferens, and Amica, neither party has briefed the
appropriate choice of law analysis. The Court reminds the parties that it adheres to Rule 1 of the
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, and by their inaccurate briefing, the parties have not complied
with same. Further, Plaintiffs have not complied with Local Civil Rule 7.1B, which states:
[a]ny party filing a civil action under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 shall
file with the complaint, or within fourteen (14) days thereafter, a
RICO case statement in the form set forth at "Appendix LCvR
7.1B" or in another form as directed by the Court.
LcvR 7.1B, https://www.pawd.uscourts.gov/Documents/Forms/lrmanual.pdf. Likewise, they
have not complied with this Court’s Practices and Procedures § VI.C (updated Feb. 5, 2013)
(“With respect to RICO actions, the Court requires that the plaintiff file a RICO Case Statement
within fourteen (14) days of the filing of the Complaint in the form set forth at ‘Appendix LcvR
7.1.B’ of the Local Rules.”). Plaintiffs shall comply with said Local Rule and file their RICO
Case Statement no later than November 4, 2014.
2

Defendants Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation and Commonwealth Land Title
Insurance Corporation shall file an Answer to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint no later
than November 25, 2014.
Accordingly, Defendants Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation and Commonwealth Land
Title Insurance Corporation’s Motion [34] is DENIED and oral argument on same, scheduled for
October 23, 2014, is CANCELLED.
s/ Nora Barry Fischer
Nora Barry Fischer
United States District Judge
cc/ecf: All counsel of record.

3