Fidelity National Title Insurance Company et al v. Worldwide Property Hub, LLC

Filing 36

ORDER Denying Motion for Summary Judgment as Premature and Denying Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr. on August 28, 2024. (Mays, Samuel)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY, as
subrogee and in its own
right, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WORLDWIDE PROPERTY HUB, LLC,
Defendant.

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

No. 2:23-cv-02210-SHM-cgc

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS PREMATURE AND
DENYING MOTION TO STAY
Before the Court is the May 22, 2024 Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by Plaintiffs R.S. Rental II, LLC, (“R.S. Rental”)
and Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (“Fidelity”), as
subrogee of R.S. Rental and in its own right.

(ECF No. 25.)

Defendant Worldwide Property Hub, LLC (“Worldwide”) failed to
respond in the time required by the local rules, and the Court
issued an Order to Show Cause on July 23, 2024.
R. Civ. P. 56.1(b).

(ECF No. 28); L.

On August 7, 2024, Defendant filed a Motion

to Stay Summary Judgment Pending Conclusion of Discovery.
No. 32.)

(ECF

For the reasons below, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary

Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature, with leave to
refile.

Defendant’s Motion to Stay is DENIED.

I.

Background

Plaintiffs sued Defendant on April 11, 2023, alleging the
following.

(ECF No. 1.)

property to R.S. Rental.

Worldwide sold a Memphis, Tennessee
(Id. at ¶¶ 6-7.)

Defendant executed a

warranty deed and owner’s affidavit representing that there was no
“outstanding

contract

of

affecting said property.”

sale,

conveyance,

(Id. at ¶¶ 9-10.)

or

encumbrance

After the sale,

Plaintiffs received notice that the property was to be sold at
auction following default on a deed of trust executed by a prior
owner.

(Id. at ¶¶ 17-20.)

Fidelity retained counsel to stop the

foreclosure and auction and paid the outstanding amount owed on
the deed.
negligent

(Id. at ¶¶ at 22-23.)
misrepresentation,

Plaintiffs bring claims for

breach

of

contract,

breach

of

warranty of title, and indemnity based on Defendant’s failure to
uncover or disclose the deed of trust.

(Id. at ¶¶ 25-48.)

Plaintiffs seek compensation for the money spent to contest the
foreclosure and pay off the deed.

(Id.)

A scheduling order was entered on April 23, 2024.
24.)

(ECF No.

On May 22, 2024, Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment,

attaching relevant documents, including the owner’s affidavit.
(ECF Nos. 25-27.) Worldwide failed to respond in the time required
by the local rules, and the Court issued an Order to Show Cause on
July 23, 2024.

(ECF No. 28.)

On August 7, 2024, Defendant filed

2

a Motion to Stay Summary Judgment Pending Conclusion of Discovery
and an accompanying affidavit.
II.

(ECF Nos. 32, 33.)

Standard of Review

A party may move for summary judgment at any time until thirty
days after the close of discovery.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b).

If the

nonmoving party files an affidavit or declaration showing that,
for specified reasons, it cannot provide the facts necessary to
justify its opposition, the Court may issue any order it deems
appropriate, including an order to deny or defer summary judgment
or extend time for discovery.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).

The Sixth Circuit has reversed a district court’s grant of
summary

judgment

where

the

parties

had

no

opportunity

for

discovery, holding that granting summary judgment “absent any
opportunity for discovery” is a “misuse” of Rule 56 that “offends
concepts of fundamental fairness.”

White’s Landing Fisheries,

Inc. v. Bucholzer, 29 F.3d 229, 231 (6th Cir. 1994) (emphasis in
original).

Even

when there has been no discovery, however,

district courts have the discretion to grant summary judgment
unless the nonmoving party has made the appropriate showing under
Rule 56(d).

Aldridge v. City of Warren, Mich., 682 Fed. App’x

461, 464 n.1 (6th Cir. 2017) (affirming district court’s grant of
summary judgment even where no discovery had occurred because
plaintiff had failed to comply with Rule 56(d)).

3

III. Analysis
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is denied because the
parties have had no opportunity for discovery.
Fisheries, 29 F.3d 229 at 231.

White’s Landing

The Scheduling Order was entered

on April 23, 2024, and Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment less
than one month later, on May 22.

(ECF Nos. 24, 25.)

The deadline

to complete discovery is not until October 16, 2024, some five
months later than the Motion. (ECF No. 24.) On August 1, Defendant
filed interrogatories and requests for document production.
Nos. 30, 31.)

(ECF

Defendant represents that no depositions have been

taken, and written discovery has not been completed. (ECF No. 32.)
Defendant filed its Rule 56(d) affidavit on August 7, 2024.
(ECF No. 33.)

In that affidavit, Gregory Griffin, president of

Worldwide, represents that Worldwide retained the services of
Preferred Title, LLC, (“Preferred”) to facilitate the property
sale.

(Id. at 1.)

According to Griffin, Preferred relied on

documents, including the commitment for title insurance and the
owner’s

affidavit,

prepared

by

Fidelity

and

its

business

associate, Spruce Land Services, LLC, (“Spruce”). (Id.) Discovery
is necessary to determine whether Fidelity and Spruce’s purported
preparation of those documents prevents Plaintiff’s recovery based
on

the

doctrines

of

unclean

hands,

estoppel, or comparative fault.

laches,

waiver,

(Id.; ECF No. 32 at 2.)

mistake,
Griffin

lists factual issues requiring additional discovery and asserts
4

that Defendant needs additional records and the opportunity to
depose representatives of Fidelity and Spruce.
IV.

(ECF No. 33 at 2.)

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary
Judgment is DENIED AS PREMATURE, with leave to refile. Defendant’s
Motion to Stay is also DENIED.
the same.

All deadlines in this case remain

(ECF No. 24.)

SO ORDERED this 28th day of August, 2024.

/s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr. Samuel
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5