Norman and Phyllis Lind v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NORMAN AND PHYLLIS LIND,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-35727
D.C. No. 6:08-cv-06133-AA
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 16, 2010
Portland, Oregon
Before: PREGERSON, WARDLAW and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (“Fidelity”) appeals the district
court’s denial of its request for sanctions, under Oregon Revised Statutes § 20.105,
against Norman and Phyllis Lind.
FILED
JUL 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

The district court denied Fidelity’s request for § 20.105 sanctions on the
ground that the Linds had not acted in “bad faith.” Prior to 1995, § 20.105
contained a “bad faith” requirement, but that requirement was removed by
amendment in 1995. See 1995 Or. Laws Ch. 618, § 2.
Section 20.105 now requires a prevailing party to show that the losing party
had “no objectively reasonable basis” for its claim. See 1995 Or. Laws Ch. 618,
§ 2. Fidelity cannot make that showing. When the Linds filed their complaint
against Fidelity, they possessed three documents which provided factual support
for their claims. Therefore, the Linds’ claims were not entirely devoid of factual
support, and the Linds had an objectively reasonable basis for their claims. See
Dimeo v. Gesik, 98 P.3d 397, 402 (2004) (citing Mattiza v. Foster, 311 Or. 1, 8
(1990)). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court denying
Fidelity’s request for sanctions.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --