Todd v. Fidelity National Financial, Inc.
1:12-cv-00666
D. Colo.Aug 19, 2014Background
- FCA case against Freddie Mac-related entities arising from alleged overcharges for title searches and improper payments; plaintiff Dale Todd alleges false claims, false records, and retaliation under FCA provisions.
- Freddie Mac existed as a Congress-created entity, later placed into FHFA conservatorship on Sept. 6, 2008; status as government actor is disputed for FCA purposes.
- Plaintiff’s service providers include Service Link and Fidelity National Title Group entities; conduct centers on title search practices for Freddie Mac properties.
- Plaintiff alleges CCRs and other defects were omitted from title commitments, resulting in substandard searches and inflated payments for title insurance policies.
- Colorado and governing Colorado law require a reasonable examination of title and compliance with standards, but do not mandate identifying every defect; the contract terms did not specify such exhaustive searches.
- Procedural posture involves a motion to dismiss SAC under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); the Magistrate Judge recommends partial grant/partial denial of the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Freddie Mac status as a government actor pre-2008 | Todd: Freddie Mac not government actor prior to conservatorship. | Fidelity: Freddie Mac not government actor pre-2008; FCA inapplicable for claims tied to non-government entity. | Not a government actor pre-2008; pre-2008 FCA claims dismissed. |
| Freddie Mac status post-conservatorship and nexus to government funds | Todd: FHFA conservatorship made Freddie Mac a government recipient; funds nexus via bailout. | Fidelity: Conservatorship did not convert Freddie Mac into a government actor; no required nexus to government funds. | Post-conservatorship status does not render Freddie Mac a government actor; no nexus established; related claims dismissed. |
| Element of false or fraudulent claim under FCA | Todd: Defendants contracted to perform full/adequate title searches yet charged for substandard searches; claims false or fraudulent. | Fidelity: Contracts required compliance with laws but not an obligation to identify every defect; no falsity shown. | Plaintiff failed to plead a false or fraudulent claim under the FCA. |
| Retaliation claim under FCA § 3730(h) | Todd: retaliation against whistleblowing on fraud; employer liability shown via Frank factors. | Fidelity: no viable employer relationship; retaliation claims insufficiently pled. | Retaliation claim survives against Fidelity National Title and Fidelity National Financial; merits further development. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 513 U.S. 374 (1995) (government actor status depends on degree of government control)
- Rainwater v. United States, 356 U.S. 590 (1958) (agency/instrumentality analysis in FCA context)
- Wood ex rel. U.S. v. American Institute in Taiwan, 286 F.3d 526 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (agency-like status considerations under government-instrumentality framework)