Stewart Title Guaranty Company v. Credit Suisse, No. 1:2011cv00227 - Document 255 (D. Idaho 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Stewart Title's Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby DENIED. re 163 . Signed by Judge Dee V Benson. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jp)

Download PDF
Stewart Title Guaranty Company v. Credit Suisse Doc. 255 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, a Texas Corporation, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT vs. CREDIT SUISSE, Cayman Islands Branch, Case No. 1:11-CV-00227-BLW Defendant. Before the Court is Stewart Title Guaranty Company’s (“Stewart Title’s”) Motion for Summary Judgment. A hearing was held before the Court in Boise on August 18, 2014. Stewart Title was represented by Steven B. Andersen and Thomas A. Banducci. Credit Suisse, Cayman Islands Branch (“Credit Suisse”) was represented by Stephen E.W. Hale, Rita Cornish and James Martin. Having considered the parties’ arguments, the relevant facts and law, the Court issues the following order denying Stewart Title’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Stewart Title moved the Court for summary judgment on Credit Suisse’s Counterclaims asserting that Credit Suisse lacks standing. In order for Credit Suisse to satisfy it’s constitutional standing requirement, it must prove it suffered an “injury in fact” which is “concrete and particularized” harm to a “legally protected interest.” Sprint Communications Co., L.P. v. APCC Svcs, Inc., 554 U.S. 269 (2008)(quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)). At the hearing, given the unique circumstances of this case, the Court ordered Credit Suisse to supplement the record with evidence supporting its claim of standing. Based on the record, including the additional documents Credit Suisse has now produced and the parties’ supplemental briefing, the Court is persuaded that Credit Suisse has satisfied its Article III standing requirement and has the legal right to bring these Counterclaims. The Court also finds that Credit Suisse’s alleged Counterclaims contain disputed issues of material fact which preclude summary judgment. Therefore, Stewart Title’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby DENIED. DATED this 26th day of February, 2015. _________________________________ Dee Benson United States District Judge

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.