Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. // CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12CV91 (Judge Keeley)

KRISTIAN E. WARNER, ANDREW M. WARNER, and MONROE P. WARNER, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL [DKT. NO. 24] Pending before the Court is the defendants' "Motion to [sic] Recusal of Judge" (dkt. no. 24). For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES the motion. I. The instant case has a long and storied history before the Court. For the purposes of the instant motion, however, only a broad summary of the relevant background is necessary. On December 13, 2006, the plaintiff, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company ("Old Republic"), and the defendants, Kristian E. Warner, Andrew M. Warner, and Monroe P. Warner

(collectively "the defendants"), entered into a written contract by which Old Republic agreed to issue a title insurance policy in exchange for the defendants' promise to indemnify it for any loss or damage - including attorneys' fees and expenses - resulting from

OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INS, CO. v. WARNER, ET AL. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL [DKT. NO. 24] its issuance of that policy. Subsequently, Old

1:12CV91

Republic

was

embroiled in several lawsuits related to the title insurance. On April 29, 2010, Old Republic filed its first civil action against the defendants in this Court, Old Republic Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. Warner et al, Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-00071 (N.D. W. Va. April 29, 2010), asserting claims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge, and on July 11, 2011, United State Magistrate Judge John S. Kaull granted summary judgment to Old Republic on the liability issues raised in its complaint, leaving for a jury determination only the issue of the reasonable amount of attorneys' fees to be paid. Id. at (Dkt. No. 51). On September 22, 2011, in light of the fact that the underlying suits concerning the title insurance were still pending, the parties stipulated to a dismissal of Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-00071 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and agreed that "[t]he damages issue, . . . the sole issue remaining in this case, will be dismissed without prejudice." Id. at (Dkt. No. 99). The defendants timely appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Magistrate Judge Kaull's summary judgment order. Id. at (Dkt. Nos. 101, 102, 103).

2

OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INS, CO. v. WARNER, ET AL. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL [DKT. NO. 24]

1:12CV91

Old Republic filed the instant action on May 29, 2012, seeking a judgment against the defendants for the cost of settling the underlying lawsuits, as well as its attorneys' fees and expenses. (Dkt. No. 3). The Court conducted a scheduling conference on August 9, 2012, at which time it granted Old Republic's motion to dismiss the defendants' counterclaims (dkt. no. 9)1 and confirmed that the sole issue in this case is the appropriate amount of Old Republic's damages. Old Republic filed a motion for summary judgment on February 8, 2013, arguing that the amount of attorneys' fees and expenses it incurred in the underlying lawsuits is reasonable. (Dkt. No. 23). In support of its motion, Old Republic attached the report of its expert, Robert M. Steptoe, Jr. ("Mr. Steptoe"), who was disclosed to the defendants on October 5, 2012. (Dkt. No. 18). Mr. Steptoe opines that the plaintiff's requested fees "fall within the range of reasonableness for the type and location of the litigation involved." (Dkt. No. 23-2). Three days after Old Republic filed its motion for summary judgment, on February 11, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to recuse the undersigned from this case. (Dkt. No. 24). Although the
1

The Court notes that its oral order was recorded on the docket on March 27, 2013. (Dkt. No. 27). 3

OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INS, CO. v. WARNER, ET AL. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL [DKT. NO. 24]

1:12CV91

parties completed their summary judgment briefing subsequent the recusal motion, Old Republic filed no response to the defendants' arguments for the undersigned's disqualification. The matter is, accordingly, ripe for the Court's review. II. The defendants have moved for the undersigned's recusal under 28 U.S.C.

Download 44177.pdf

West Virginia Law