Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY v. CREDIT SUISSE, 1:11-CV-00227-BLW. (2015)

Court: District Court, D. Idaho Number: infdco20150227a65 Visitors: 37
Filed: Feb. 26, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 26, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DEE BENSON , District Judge . 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' arg
More

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer