Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_10-cv-00869/USCOURTS-almd-3_10-cv-00869-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

Lane Bennett is the sole member of both Title2Land companies, and his residence is Louisiana. 

Thus, the defendants are correct that they are citizens of Louisiana for the purpose of determining

jurisdiction. See Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185 (1990).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

FIRST AMERICAN TITLE )

INSURANCE COMPANY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACT. NO. 3:10cv869-CSC

) (WO)

TITLE2LAND, LLC, a Louisiana )

limited liability company, and )

TITLE2LAND, LLC, an Alabama )

limited liability company, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

On September 10, 2010, plaintiff First American Title Insurance Company filed suit

in the Chambers County Circuit Court asserting a breach of contract claim against defendants

Title2Land, LLC, a Louisiana limited liability company, and Title2Land, LLC, an Alabama

limited liability company. 

First American Title Insurance Company (“First American”) is a California

corporation with its principal place of business in Florida. Title2Land, LLC, a Louisiana

limited liability company, is a Louisiana company with its principal place of business in

Louisiana and Title2Land, LLC, an Alabama limited liability company, is an Alabama

company with its principal place of business in Louisiana.1

 The plaintiff’s allegations in this

Case 3:10-cv-00869-CSC Document 24 Filed 03/08/11 Page 1 of 13
2

lawsuit stem from a national agency agreement in which the defendants agreed to act as

agents to solicit applications for title insurance, collect premiums, and issue and countersign

title insurance policies for First American. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants breached

the agreement by discovering a bankruptcy order but subsequently determining that the

judicial lien should not be included as an exception to the title policy issued by First

American on real property in Chambers County, Alabama. 

On October 14, 2010, the defendants removed the case to this court pursuant to the

court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(c)(1) and M.D. Ala. LR 73.1, the parties have consented to a United States Magistrate

Judge conducting all proceedings in this case and ordering the entry of final judgment.

On October 29, 2010, the defendants filed a 28 U.S.C. § 1404 motion to transfer

venue from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama to the United

States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. (Doc. No. 7.) On November 16,

2010, the plaintiff submitted a response in opposition to the motion to change venue. (Doc.

No. 10.) On December 2, 2010, the defendants filed a reply in opposition to the motion.

(Doc. No. 15.) On December 15, 2010, this court held oral argument on the motion. (Doc.

No. 17.) On January 11, 2011, the plaintiff filed an additional response. (Doc. No. 23.)

Upon consideration of the motion to transfer, the parties’ responses and evidentiary

materials, and the arguments of counsel, the court concludes that the motion to transfer this

case to the Middle District of Louisiana is due to be granted.

Case 3:10-cv-00869-CSC Document 24 Filed 03/08/11 Page 2 of 13
2

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc), this court adopted

as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981. 

3

II. DISCUSSION 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may transfer any civil action to a district

where it could have been brought for the convenience of the parties; the convenience of the

witnesses; and the interests of justice. The decision to transfer a case is within the discretion

of the trial court with the propriety of transfer being decided based on the facts of each

individual case. See Brown v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 1193, 1196 (11th

Cir. 1991); Hutchens v. Bill Heard Chevrolet Co., 928 F. Supp. 1089, 1090 (M.D. Ala.

1996). Under § 1404(a), a district court should not transfer a case unless "the movant can

show that [the plaintiff’s choice of forum] is clearly outweighed by other considerations.”

Howell v. Tanner, 650 F.2d 610, 616 (5th Cir. 1981).2

 See also, Robinson v. Giarmarco &

Bill, P.C., 74 F.3d 253, 260 (11th Cir. 1996); Gould v. Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 990 F. Supp. 1354,

1357 (M.D. Ala. 1998). 

Section 1404 factors include:

(1) the convenience of the witnesses; (2) the location of relevant documents

and the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (3) the convenience of the

parties; (4) the locus of operative facts; (5) the availability of process to

compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses; (6) the relative means of the

parties; (7) a forum’s familiarity with governing law; (8) the weight accorded

to a plaintiff’s choice of forum; and (9) trial efficiency and the interests of

justice, based on the totality of the circumstances. 

See Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132, 1135 n.1 (11th Cir. 2005).

A. An Adequate Alternative Forum

Case 3:10-cv-00869-CSC Document 24 Filed 03/08/11 Page 3 of 13
4

When jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, as the case is here, venue is

proper in a “judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise

to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is

situated.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(1). In this case, several events occurred in both Alabama and

Louisiana. 

In May 2002, the defendants entered into an agency agreement, in which both

Title2Land, LLC, a Louisiana limited liability company, and Title2Land, LLC, an Alabama

limited liability company agreed to act as agents for First American. The agreement was

signed by both Lane Bennet and Shirley Sparks, members of Title2Land, and Kenneth R.

Jannen, the vice president of First American. The court is unable to discern where the parties

signed the contract. 

The defendants, as agents for First American, subsequently performed title work on

real property located at 26220 Veterans Memorial Parkway in Camp Hill, Alabama.

According to First American, the defendants erred when determining that an order issued by

a bankruptcy court in the Middle District of Alabama was inapplicable to the exceptions of

the title insurance policy. The defendants allege that several of its employees performed title

work, including consideration of the effect of the judicial lien, as well as prepared closing

documents on the real property while in their office in Louisiana. As a result of the judicial

lien on the property, First American was caused to defend Philander Morgan, the purchaser

of the Chambers County property and a resident of Alabama, as well as his lender,

Wilmington Finance, against a declaration filed by a creditor in the Chambers County Circuit

Case 3:10-cv-00869-CSC Document 24 Filed 03/08/11 Page 4 of 13
3

Notwithstanding the use of the term “negligently,” the complaint alleges only a breach of

contract.

5

Court. The case was subsequently settled. First American now seeks to enforce an

indemnity provision in the agency agreement, arguing that the defendants breached the

contract by failing to recognize the judicial lien as an encumbrance on the property. Thus,

a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the breach-of-contract claim

occurred both in Alabama and Louisiana. Moreover, the parties do not dispute that this case

could have been brought in the Middle District of Louisiana. This court therefore concludes

that this lawsuit could have originally been brought in the Middle District of Louisiana. 

B. Factor Analysis

(1) Convenience of Witnesses

The defendants’ witnesses in this case will be current and former employees from

Title2Land. The defendants assert that they plan on calling Lane Bennett, a member of

Title2Land, and Annette Stanhope, a current employee, as witnesses. In addition, Title2Land

expects to call two former employees who performed title work on the judicial lien and one

former employee who participated in the closing of the loan. The complaint filed in state

court alleges that “Title2Land did not carefully and prudently consider the effect of the

bankruptcy court’s order . . . [and] negligently3

 and imprudently assumed that the effect of

the bankruptcy court’s August 7, 2006 or was to avoid the lien of the judgment in its

entirety.” First American characterizes this as “the error that led to the issuance of the title

Case 3:10-cv-00869-CSC Document 24 Filed 03/08/11 Page 5 of 13
6

insurance policy without making an exception for the judgment.”

The plaintiff expects to call Braxton Wagnon, an assistant vice president of First

American, as well as two of its lawyers who defended the purchaser and lender in the

Chambers County Circuit Court. The Title2Land employees and former employees live in

Louisiana; the plaintiff’s witnesses are residents of Birmingham, Alabama. 

Title2Land argues that its former employees are principal witnesses and cannot be

compelled by this court to attend trial in the Middle District of Alabama. Significantly, the

non-parties in this case reside in Louisiana. Other than the plaintiff’s forum choice, a factor

which is discussed below, the most important factor is the convenience of witnesses. See

Owens v. Blue Tee Corp., 177 F.R.D. 673, 679 (M.D. Ala. 1998). Furthermore,“‘[t]he

convenience of non-party witnesses is important, if not the most important, factor in

determining whether a motion for transfer should be granted.’” Conseal International Inc.

v. Econalytic Systems, Inc., No. 09-60477-CIV, 2009 WL 1285865 (S.D. Fla. 2009)

(discussing transfer under § 1404(a)). First American alleges that Title2Land breached the

terms of the agency agreement by misconstruing the effect of a bankruptcy order and failing

to include the judicial lien as a reference when issuing the policy. As reflected by the

allegations of the complaint, the former Title2Land employees are certainly material to this

case, and it would clearly be much more convenient for them to appear in Louisiana than in

Alabama.

First American asserts that it intends to call two non-party witnesses, specifically the

lawyers from Birmingham, Alabama, to testify concerning the plaintiff’s failure to mitigate

Case 3:10-cv-00869-CSC Document 24 Filed 03/08/11 Page 6 of 13
4

 To the extent the plaintiffs argue that their own lawyers in the instant action would be

inconvenienced by traveling from Alabama to Louisiana, the court concludes that this factor does not

weigh heavily against transfer. See Nolte v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., No. Civ. A. 3:07cv782IP,

2007 WL 2253561, *3 (N.D. Ala. 2007).

7

damages during the Chambers County Circuit Court case. Although somewhat inconvenient,

the plaintiff does not contend that its lawyers will be unable or will resist traveling to

Louisiana. Therefore, although this factor provides some support against transfer, there is

no indication that it is a significant factor. It is far more likely that the non-party witnesses

who are no longer employed by Title2Land would resist testifying as defense witnesses in

the Middle District of Alabama. Thus, this factor weighs heavily in the defendants’ favor.4

 

(2) Location of Relevant Documents and Sources of Proof

Few documents or other evidentiary materials related to the breach-of-contract claim

against the defendants in this case are in this district. With the exception of the bankruptcy

order, there are no relevant documents or any other significant evidence located here. The

bulk of documentary evidence is either in Louisiana with the defendants or in Birmingham,

Alabama with the plaintiff’s attorneys. All of the evidence, obviously, could be made

available in either forum. “[I]n this current era of technology, document production is not

as onerous as it once was, and scores of file boxes filled with paper (if they exist) need not

travel across the country.” Conseal International Inc., supra. Thus, the location of relevant

documents is not a significant factor in this case. 

Case 3:10-cv-00869-CSC Document 24 Filed 03/08/11 Page 7 of 13
5

 The court notes that a title research company initially discovered the bankruptcy order,

which was subsequently provided to Title2Land.

6

 The court is unable to discern at this stage of the proceedings where the parties entered into

the agency agreement. Nonetheless, it is clear to this court that the parties did not sign the agency

agreement in the Middle District of Alabama. 

8

(3) Convenience of the parties

Title2Land’s office is located in Baton Rouge and Lane Bennet, the sole member of

Title2Land, is a resident of Louisiana. Title2Land, LLC, however, is incorporated in

Montgomery, Alabama. First American is a California Corporation with its principal place

of business in Florida. Thus, the balance of convenience to the parties is relatively the same.

(4) Locus of Operative Facts

The plaintiffs argue that the majority of facts occurred in this district because the real

property is located in Chambers County, Alabama, the closing occurred in Lee County,

Alabama, and the bankruptcy order was discovered in the Middle District of Alabama.5

 The

plaintiffs also argue that they were caused to defend the purchaser and lender in the

Chambers County Circuit Court as the result of the defendants’ error. The defendants,

however, argue that the operative facts in this breach-of-contract case occurred in the Middle

District of Louisiana because the parties entered into the agency agreement in Louisiana.6

Title2Land also argues that its employees considered the effect of the judicial lien and

prepared the closing documents with respect to the Chambers County property in its office

Case 3:10-cv-00869-CSC Document 24 Filed 03/08/11 Page 8 of 13
7

 The HUD-1 settlement statement indicates that Title2Land was the settlement agent and that

the place of settlement is 11851 Wentling Avenue, Ste. A, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816. (Doc. No.

10-2, Pl’s Ex. 2.)

9

in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.7 Thus, the facts related to the breach of contract claim in this

case occurred both in Louisiana and Alabama. The locus of operative facts does not weigh

in favor of either forum. 

(5) Availability of Process to Compel Unwilling Witnesses

The non-party witnesses in this case, former Title2Land employees, cannot be

compelled by this court to appear in the Middle District of Alabama, as discussed above,

their testimony will be important. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a

subpoena may be quashed when it requires “a person who is neither a party nor a party’s

officer to incur substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial.”

FED.R.CIV.P. 45(c)(3)(B)(iii). As previously discussed, it is unlikely that former Title2Land

employees would willingly travel to Montgomery, Alabama to testify in this case. However,

the former employees would be subject to compulsory attendance in the Middle District of

Louisiana. This factor weighs heavily in favor of transfer.

(6) Relative Means of the Parties

The pleadings and evidentiary materials indicate that both First American and

Title2Land conduct business throughout the United States. It is undisputed that First

American has numerous employees with several offices throughout the nation and that

Case 3:10-cv-00869-CSC Document 24 Filed 03/08/11 Page 9 of 13
10

Title2Land has no more than 13 employees and one office in Louisiana. Both companies,

however, conduct business in Alabama and Louisiana. First American is a larger company

and therefore may have more financial resources. Nonetheless, both companies conduct

business in Alabama and Louisiana. Thus, the court concludes that this factor only slightly

favors transfer.

(7) A Forum’s Familiarity with Governing Law

The parties disagree on which state’s law controls. First American argues that

Alabama law applies, while the defendants contend that either Louisiana or Florida law is

applicable. An ambiguous choice of law provision is included in the agency agreement.

Paragraph 25 of the agreement provides, “This agreement shall be governed by and construed

and enforced in accordance with the laws of Territory.” (Doc. No. 10, Pl’s Ex. 11.)

Although “territory” is not specifically defined, paragraph 1 provides:

Subject to the conditions and limitations contained herein, COMPANY

hereby designates and appoints AGENT as its representative or agent to solicit

applications for title insurance, collect premiums and issue and countersign

title insurance policies, binders, commitments to insure and endorsements

(hereinafter collectively terms “Policies”, each a “Policy”), in the designated

geographical area (hereinafter termed “Territory”) as set forth in SCHEDULE

“I” attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Unless otherwise expressly set forth in SCHEDULE “I”, and only to the

extent expressed therein, AGENT shall be a non-exclusive agent within the

Territory, and COMPANY shall not be restricted, in any way, from engaging

in the business of title insurance, including without limitation, the solicitation

of title insurance applications and the appointment of additional agents, within

the Territory. This Agreement will not be effective until AGENT has become

licensed pursuant to the laws of Territory as set forth in SCHEDULE “I” and

Case 3:10-cv-00869-CSC Document 24 Filed 03/08/11 Page 10 of 13
11

will be limited to such period as AGENT’S license remains in effect.

(Id.) Schedule I lists Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi as separate territories. (Id.) 

At this stage of the proceedings, there is no parol evidence indicating the intent of the

parties. Because the real property on which the title insurance policy was issued is located

“in the geographical area” of Alabama, it is arguable that the parties intended for Alabama

law to apply. Moreover, Alabama law provides that one issuing a title insurance policy on

real property in this state must be domiciled or organized here. Ala. Code § 27-25-4(a).

Thus, it is more likely that Title2Land, LLC, an Alabama limited liability company, was the

actual issuer of the policy. Assuming arguendo that Alabama law applies, any advantage to

be gained by having a local court decide the case is “not generally considered a highly

significant one.” Summers-Wood L.P. v. Wolf, No. 3:08cv60/RV/MD, 2008 WL 2229529,

*3 (N.D. Fla. 2008) (citing Hernandez v. Graebel Van Lines, 761 F. Supp. 983, 991

(E.D.N.Y. 1991)). The Middle District of Louisiana is as capable as this court of considering

a simple breach-of-contract case. 

(8) Weight Accorded to the Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum

The court recognizes that a plaintiff’s choice of forum is afforded considerable

deference. Hale v. Cub Cadet, LLC, No. 3:10cv697-MEF, 2010 WL 4628185, * 4 (M.D.

Ala. 2010). The weight assigned to a plaintiff’s forum choice is significant and “‘will not

be disturbed unless the other factors weigh substantially in favor of transfer.’” Id. (citing

Mohamed v. Mazda Motor Corp., 90 F. Supp.2d 757, 774 (E.D. Tex. 2000)). As previously

Case 3:10-cv-00869-CSC Document 24 Filed 03/08/11 Page 11 of 13
12

discussed, the convenience of the majority of the witnesses and the availability of process

to compel unwilling witnesses weighs heavily in favor of transfer. In this case, the location

of the property is not material to resolution of the issues in this case. Rather, what is at issue

is whether the title opinion was imprudently rendered. Based on the submissions of the

parties, it appears that this opinion was formulated in Louisiana by employees who reside

there and who are subject to process only there. The court concludes that this factor coupled

with the other factors outweighs the plaintiff’s forum choice.

(9) Interests of Justice

Finally, this court must consider whether interests of justice weigh in favor of transfer.

There is no indication that the plaintiff will be prejudiced by transfer as this case is in its

infancy. Furthermore, because three of the principal non-party witnesses who are expected

to testify at trial reside in Louisiana, the interests of justice strongly favor transfer of this case

to the Middle District of Louisiana. 

The court has carefully considered each of the above factors and find that they are

mostly neutral or weigh in favor of transfer. “[I]t is undisputed that courts will not blindly

prefer the plaintiff[‘s] choice of forum over a more convenient location.” Summers-Wood

L.P. v. Wolf, 2008 WL 2229529 (N.D. Fla. May 23, 2008) (citations omitted). Transferring

the case to the Middle District of Louisiana would result in significantly greater convenience

for the non-party witnesses and the defendants, while, at the same time, would be slightly

less convenient for the plaintiff and its witnesses. Given the importance of the testimony of

Case 3:10-cv-00869-CSC Document 24 Filed 03/08/11 Page 12 of 13
13

the defendants’ non-party witnesses in this case, the court concludes that transfer is

appropriate in the interests of justice. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the motion to transfer be and is hereby GRANTED and that this case

be and is hereby transferred to the Middle District of Louisiana.

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to take the necessary actions to transfer this

case.

Done this 8th day of March, 2011.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00869-CSC Document 24 Filed 03/08/11 Page 13 of 13