Edwards v. The First Am. Corp., 08-56536
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | GRABER, Circuit |
| Citation | 610 F.3d 514 |
| Parties | Denise P. EDWARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.The FIRST AMERICAN CORPORATION; FFM First American Title Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Docket Number | No. 08-56536,08-56538.,08-56536 |
| Decision Date | 21 June 2010 |
610 F.3d 514
Denise P. EDWARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
The FIRST AMERICAN CORPORATION; FFM First American Title Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 08-56536, 08-56538.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 4, 2010.
Filed June 21, 2010.
Richard M. Zuckerman, New York, NY, and Charles A. Newman, St. Louis, MO, for the defendants-appellees.
Gregory W. Happ, Medina, OH, and Mary Dryovage, Law Offices of Mary Dryovage, San Francisco, CA, for amicus curiae.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, James Otero, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-07-03796-SJO-FFM.
Before: B. FLETCHER, HARRY PREGERSON, and SUSAN P. GRABER, Circuit Judges.
GRABER, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff Denise P. Edwards filed a complaint against Defendants The First American Corporation (“First American”) and its wholly owned subsidiary, First American Title Insurance Company (“First American Title”) (collectively, “Defendants”). The complaint alleged a violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2607. According to Plaintiff, First American improperly paid millions of dollars to individual title companies and in exchange those title companies entered into exclusive referral agreements with First American. Plaintiff moved for class certification, and certain discovery, which the district court denied. Plaintiff's appeal from those rulings is addressed separately in a memorandum disposition filed this date. At the same time as Plaintiff filed her motions, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing. The district court denied the motion, and Defendants brought this appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). See also
First American is a publicly traded holding company that owns, in addition to First American Title, several other companies in the field of real estate-related information services. First American Title is a title insurance underwriter that issues title insurance policies to real estate owners and lenders in 47 states and the District of Columbia. Defendants assert that First American has an ownership interest in a small proportion of the thousands of title insurance agencies that are authorized to sell First American Title policies. Plaintiff contends that, in exchange for First American's purchase of a minority interest, many of these title agencies enter into “exclusive” agency agreements with First American Title, pursuant to which the agencies agreed to sell First American Title's title insurance policies generally. Defendants assert that few First American Title “exclusive” agency agreements are completely exclusive. Plaintiff claims that these agreements are actually exclusive and thus illegal under the anti-kickback provisions of RESPA.
According to Plaintiff's allegations, she was affected by one such exclusive agency agreement between First American and Tower City. In 1998, First American paid Tower City $2 million in cash and securities. According to Plaintiff's allegations, in exchange, First American received a 17.5% minority interest in Tower City, and Tower City entered into a “Captive Title Insurance Agreement” that required it to refer all future title insurance business “exclusively” to First American Title. Plaintiff further alleges that Tower City had agreements with and regularly referred business to at least three other title insurers prior to 1998, but then began referring customers exclusively to First American after they entered into the Captive Title Insurance Agreement.
Plaintiff, a resident of Cleveland, Ohio, bought a home in Cleveland in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Munoz v. PHH Mortg. Corp., No. 1:08-cv-00759-DAD-BAM
...were "charged for a settlement service tainted by kickbacks or illegal referrals." (Doc. No. 354 at 43.)In Edwards v. First Am. Corp. , 610 F.3d 514, 518 (9th Cir. 2010) (" Edwards I "), abrogated by Frank v. Gaos , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1041, 1044, 203 L.Ed.2d 404 (2019), the Ninth Cir......
-
Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., No. 16-16486 & 16-16783
...debated whether the violation of a statute inherently creates a concrete injury under Article III. Compare Edwards v. First Am. Corp. , 610 F.3d 514, 517 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that a statutory violation alone is enough), with David v. Alphin , 704 F.3d 327, 338–39 (4th Cir. 2013) (holdin......
-
Slack v. Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs, C-13-5001 EMC
...claims (whether they are seeking monetary or injunctive relief) under a "statutory rights" theory. In Edwards v. First American Corp., 610 F.3d 514 (9th Cir. 2010), the Ninth Circuit recognized that the "'injury required by Article III can exist solely by virtue of statutes creating legal r......
-
Alliance v. Salazar, 1:09–CV–01201 OWW.
...III can exist solely by virtue of ‘statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing.’ ” Edwards v. First Am. Corp., 610 F.3d 514, 517 (9th Cir.2010) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 500, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975)). The IQA creates no enforceable legal......
-
Munoz v. PHH Mortg. Corp., No. 1:08-cv-00759-DAD-BAM
...were "charged for a settlement service tainted by kickbacks or illegal referrals." (Doc. No. 354 at 43.)In Edwards v. First Am. Corp. , 610 F.3d 514, 518 (9th Cir. 2010) (" Edwards I "), abrogated by Frank v. Gaos , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1041, 1044, 203 L.Ed.2d 404 (2019), the Ninth Cir......
-
Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., No. 16-16486 & 16-16783
...debated whether the violation of a statute inherently creates a concrete injury under Article III. Compare Edwards v. First Am. Corp. , 610 F.3d 514, 517 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that a statutory violation alone is enough), with David v. Alphin , 704 F.3d 327, 338–39 (4th Cir. 2013) (holdin......
-
Slack v. Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs, C-13-5001 EMC
...claims (whether they are seeking monetary or injunctive relief) under a "statutory rights" theory. In Edwards v. First American Corp., 610 F.3d 514 (9th Cir. 2010), the Ninth Circuit recognized that the "'injury required by Article III can exist solely by virtue of statutes creating legal r......
-
Alliance v. Salazar, 1:09–CV–01201 OWW.
...III can exist solely by virtue of ‘statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing.’ ” Edwards v. First Am. Corp., 610 F.3d 514, 517 (9th Cir.2010) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 500, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975)). The IQA creates no enforceable legal......
-
TITLE INSURANCE: PROTECTING PROPERTY AT WHAT PRICE?
...purchasers had not suffered any real-world harm from the deprivation of fair competition. Id. at 256. (258.) Edwards v. First Am. Corp., 610 F.3d 514 (9th Cir. 2010), cert, granted in part, 564 U.S. 1018 (2011); Alston v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 585 F.3d 753 (3d Cir. 2009); Carter v. Welles......
-
Frank v. Gaos.
...(citing Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(e)). (3.) Id. at 1044. (4.) Id at. 1044-45. (5.) Frank, 139 S. Ct. 1044; Edwards v. First American Corp., 610 F.3d 514 (2010) (holding that injury exists wherever a statute gives an individual a statutory cause of action and the plaintiff claims the defendant......