Stewart Title Guaranty Company v. First American Title Insurance Company Do Not Docket. Case transferred to Middle District of Florida., No. 4:2015cv00354 - Document 17 (S.D. Tex. 2015)
Court Description: 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)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Stewart Title Guaranty Company v. First American Title Insurance C... to Middle District of Florida. Doc. 17 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
