Whether the McCarran-Ferguson Act and Louisiana Title Insurance Act preclude federal preemption of state title insurance regulations under the Supremacy Clause

[1] Did the Louisiana Supreme Court err by counting Christopher Columbus Day against Applicants in computing the 14-day deadline for filing a Request for En Banc reconsideration at the Court of Appeal? [2] Given the gravity of Group Life as to the title insurance industry, should Louisiana proceedings be stayed so Applicants can present the question directly to the United States Supreme Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1651(a) and the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution? The first question is subsumed by the second question. In Klein v. Lewis Title, the district and appellate courts accepted the Louisiana Title Insurance Act as controlling, notwithstanding Group Life. The Supremacy Clause is clear: “\..the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” In the case at bar, the Louisiana Title Insurance Act (“the ACT”) would be ” the “...law to the contrary of Group Life’...” This is not a complicated case. COMPELLING REASONS FOR A STAY Applicants are not new to the issue before the Court and can address all matters quickly and efficiently”. Klein v. The American Land Title Association (and the four sisters), D.C. Docket 12-1061, (“Klein v. ALTA’) was dismissed on Clayton Act standing, not the merits. Certiorari to SCOTUS was denied at Docket 13-1560. In Klein v. Steven Turner Mnuchin, D.C. Docket 18-769 (“Klein 1 The ACT was created in response to the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1011, ceding regulation of “...the business of insurance...” to the states in exchange for immunity from the Sherman Act. 2 Based on the undisputed evidence developed, Applicants suggest that the Full Court can sua sponte issue the necessary order to take up the matter expeditiously. Abundant Amici will support the proposition that a title policy is not “...a contract of insurance..”, page 3, infra. Applicants can fully brief the issues in 30 days. 2 v. Mnuchin”), mandamus was sought to require the Treasury Secretary to declare that he did NOT include the industry in his annual Dodd-Frank reports because it was NOT engaged in the “...business of insurance...” as described in Proctor v. State Farm, 561 F. 2"4 262 (D.C. Cir. 1977) and Proctor v. State Farm, 675 F.2d 308 (D.C. Cir. 1982). In Klein v. Mnuchin, the court held: “The Court won’t question Levy Gardens’ financial loss, as the developer claims to have suffered a $9 million setback. The difficulty is how the Secretary’s failure to include title insurance in his annual report caused the injury or how this Court can redress the loss. If malfeasance by another precipitated the loss, the malfeasor is Lewis Title, not the Secretary.” That said, in 2019 Applicants returned to state court, urging enforcement of Group Life. During the long life of Klein v. Lewis Title, the highly-esteemed state judge expressed a sentiment that the issue should be decided by a federal court with the necessary prowess to overthrow an industry nationally derided for “THE FLEECING OF AMERICA”, Exhibit B. SUPERABUNDANT AMICT Applicants are not alone. Forbes contributor Scott Woolley put it thus at “Inside America’s Richest Insurance Racket” in November, 2006: “TITLE INSURANCE FIRMS RAKE IN $18 BILLION A YEAR FOR A PRODUCT THAT IS OUTDATED, LARGELY UNNEEDED — AND PROTECTED BY LAW.” It has been 81 years since South-Eastern Underwriters was decided and 80 years since McCarran-Ferguson turned the regulation of the business of insurance tothe states. Since then, the detractors of title insurance have called 3 for the guillotine to fall, cited to al