Mahon v. Ticor Title Insurance Company
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12947
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Mahon sues Chicago Title and Ticor entities in Connecticut for overcharging on title insurance in a refinance, alleging CUTPA violations and related claims.
- Connecticut law requires title insurers to file premium rate schedules and charge per those schedules; Chicago Title and Ticor allegedly coordinated to conceal the refinance discount.
- Mahon refinanced in 2003 and was charged the full rate; she did not allege injury by Ticor entities, only by Chicago Title.
- Mahon asserts a juridical link between Chicago Title and Ticor entities justifies representing a class injured by Ticor even though she was not injured by them.
- District court dismissed Ticor claims for lack of Article III standing; Mahon moved for final judgment and certification; the issue on appeal is standing and juridical link relevance to standing.
- Mahon argues plaintiff need show injury by at least one defendant; majority rejects this interpretation and affirms dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article III standing requires injury by each defendant | Mahon | Ticor | No; standing requires injury to the plaintiff from the defendant's conduct; injury by one does not automatically extend to non-injurious defendants. |
| Whether juridical link permits suing non-injurious defendants in a class action | Mahon | Ticor | Juridical link cannot create standing where plaintiff lacks injury; district court properly dismissed. |
| Whether class-certification sequencing affects standing analysis in juridical-link cases | Mahon | Ticor | Court rejects prioritizing class certification over Article III standing; standing analyzed per defendant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements; injury in fact, redressability, causation)
- Selevan v. N.Y. Thruway Auth., 584 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2009) (standing and injury-in-fact; threshold questions)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) (standing per-claim; no abrogation of Article III minima by class actions)
- Gladstone Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91 (1979) (injury requirement; individual standing needed for each claim)
- Payton v. County of Kane, 308 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2002) (sequential treatment of class certification and standing; discussed juridical-link approach)
- Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (1999) (class-certification issues logically antecedent to Article III concerns (context-specific))
- La Mar v. H & B Novelty & Loan Co., 489 F.2d 461 (9th Cir. 1973) (origin of juridical-link doctrine; related to expeditious resolution of linked defendants)
- Rivera v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., 283 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 2002) (noting limitations of class-certification-first approach; standing analysis nuanced)