Summary
In Winn, the court held that, because the plaintiffs allegations "clearly rest on the amount paid by Plaintiffs for title insurance, effectively implicating the validity of the rates set for title insurance in Texas[,] Plaintiffs thus cannot now contend they should not be subject to the filed rate doctrine on the basis that they are not challenging the validity of rates approved by the Texas Department of Insurance."
Summary of this case from Peacock v. AARP, Inc.Opinion
No. 09-50511.
March 30, 2010.
Loren Kieve, Kieve Law Offices, San Francisco, CA, William Smythe Shepherd, Jr., Shepherd, Smith Edwards, L.L.P., Houston, TX, Arun S. Subramanian, Susman Godfrey, L.L.P., Louis Fox Burke, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Barry R. Ostrager, Kevin J. Arquit, Patrick Timothy Shilling, Simpson, Thacher Bartlett, L.L.P., James Ian Serota, Greenberg Traurig, L.L.P., Mark Allen Robertson, Fulbright Jaworski, L.L.P., New York, NY, Chris A. Blackerby, Germer, Gertz, Beaman Brown, L.L.P., Austin, TX, Lawrence Louis Germer, Charles W. Goehringer, Jr., Germer Gertz, L.L.P., Beaumont, TX, George Allan Van Fleet, Greenberg Traurig, L.P., Layne E. Kruse, Fulbright Jaworski, L.L.P., Houston, TX, David Marion Foster, Fulbright Jaworski, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, USDC No. 1:09-CV-214.
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs are Texas homeowners who purchased title insurance from one or more of the Defendant companies. The homeowners complain that they were charged artificially inflated rates as a result of a price-fixing scheme. In Texas, the rates for title insurance are set by the Commissioner of Insurance. Title insurance companies are required to charge these rates.
On April 3, 2008, the homeowners filed this suit as a class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case was later transferred to the Western District. No class certification has apparently issued.
The homeowners insist that the companies' actions constitute a per se price-fixing scheme in violation of the Sherman Act. See 15 U.S.C. § 1. They also allege that the companies violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act. They also make certain common law claims.
In August of 2008, the title insurance companies jointly moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Among the allegations was that the federal and state claims were barred by the "filed-rate doctrine," which precludes actions against private entities for charging a rate set by the appropriate regulating authority.
On May 14, 2009, the district court dismissed on the sole basis that the filed-rate doctrine barred each claim. The homeowners timely appealed.
The filed-rate doctrine prevents state-regulated entities from charging rates other than those mandated by the proper authority. Ark. La. Gas Co. v. Hall, 453 U.S. 571, 577, 101 S.Ct. 2925, 69 L.Ed.2d 856 (1981). The doctrine also prohibits suits by customers against entities charging government-prescribed rates. Keogh v. Chicago Nw. Ry., Co., 260 U.S. 156, 162-35, 43 S.Ct. 47, 67 L.Ed. 183 (1922).
The homeowners assert three reasons the filed-rate doctrine does not bar their claims: (1) applying the filed-rate doctrine to the companies' alleged antitrust violations is contrary to Texas law; (2) the Texas Insurance Commissioner's authority is too limited to justify application of the filed-rate doctrine; and (3) the companies' conduct violated federal and state antitrust law, making the filed-rate doctrine inapplicable.
In addition, the homeowners make various constitutional and state law arguments. Finally, they allege that they were improperly denied a right to amend their complaint.
After a review of the record and the briefs filed on appeal, we conclude, largely for the reasons expressed by the district court, that the filed-rate doctrine bars each of the homeowners' claims. None of the arguments that would allow evading that doctrine has merit.
We AFFIRM.