Benavides v. Chicago Title Insurance
636 F.3d 699
5th Cir.2011Background
- Benavides sued Chicago Title for failing to provide the Texas rate-rule reissue discount on a title policy.
- Texas Rule 8 provides a mandatory discount for borrowers refinancing within seven years if the prior mortgage was insured; Benavides claimed $370.40.
- Plaintiffs asserted RESPA and state-law claims; RESPA and unjust enrichment claims were later dismissed.
- District court held there were no class-wide questions that could be determined on a common basis; certification would require individualized file-by-file review.
- Benavides sought class certification under Rule 23(b)(3); district court denied on December 9, 2009; Mims was decided the same day.
- Benavides appealed via Rule 23(f); the Fifth Circuit affirmed, ruling no abuse of discretion in denying class certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do common questions predominate under Rule 23(b)(3)? | Benavides argues common liability questions exist for the discount denial. | Chicago Title contends predominant questions require individualized inquiries. | No; no class-wide questions predominate. |
| Does Mims control the standard for class certification here? | Benavides relies on Mims to permit class-wide liability. | Chicago Title argues Mims does not alter district-law predominance standards. | Mims does not control the district court’s predominance analysis. |
| Is the class definition appropriate or would it require individualized inquiries? | Benavides contends a broad class can be certified under Stewart’s underwriting. | Chicago Title asserts individualized determinations for eligibility undermine class viability. | Class-wide liability questions are not demonstrated; definition alone does not guarantee predominance. |
| Did the district court err by requiring a file-by-file review rather than class-wide proof? | Benavides argues certification should not hinge on individualized document reviews. | Chicago Title maintains necessary individualized inquiries prevent class-wide adjudication. | No abuse of discretion; individualized inquiries defeat predominance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mims v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 590 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 2009) (addressed class certification standards in RESPA and state-law claims)
- Castano v. American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996) (rigorous analysis prerequisite for Rule 23)
- O'Sullivan v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 319 F.3d 732 (5th Cir. 2003) (abuse of discretion review for class-cert decisions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 339 F.3d 294 (5th Cir. 2003) (predominance and superiority requirements for 23(b)(3))
- Steering Comm. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 461 F.3d 598 (5th Cir. 2006) (understanding of claims, defenses, and law for class-action questions)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (class-action prerequisites and predominance principles)