McCoy v. Philadelphia Insurance Company ( 2020 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 MAURICE MCCOY, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:20-cv-00879-GMN-DJA 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER PHILADELPHIA INSURANCE COMPANY, ) 7 ) Defendant. ) 8 ) 9 10 Pending before the Court is Defendant Philadelphia Insurance Company’s (“Defendant”) 11 Motion to Transfer Venue, (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff Maurice McCoy (“Plaintiff”) did not file a 12 response, and Defendant filed a Notice of Non-Opposition, (ECF No. 10). For the reasons 13 discussed below, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED. 14 I. BACKGROUND 15 This case arises from an insurance contract dispute. On March 24, 2020, Plaintiff 16 commenced this action in state court, alleging the following claims against Defendant: (1) 17 breach of contract; (2) contractual breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair 18 dealing; (3) tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing - bad faith; 19 and (4) insurance unfair trade practices. (Compl. ¶¶ 14–41, Ex. C to Petition for Removal, ECF 20 No. 1-3). On May 15, 2020, Defendant removed this matter to the U.S. District Court, District 21 of Nevada on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Petition for Removal, ECF No. 1). 22 Defendant now moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to transfer venue to the Eastern District 23 of California, Fresno Division. (Mot. Transfer, ECF No. 8). In support of the Motion, 24 Defendant submits inter alia that Plaintiff’s action “aris[es] out of a denial of an insurance 25 claim relating to an insurance policy issued in the State of California, to a California resident. 1 The subject of the insurance claim is a vehicle that is titled and registered in California that was 2 to be stored/garaged within the State California.” (Id. at 14). Defendants further argue that the 3 case should be transferred because “all of the facts, evidence and circumstances surrounding the 4 claim and its investigation are located in California.” (Id.). While Plaintiff is represented by 5 counsel, Plaintiff has not filed a response in opposition. 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 The local rules have the force of law. See United States v. Hvass, 355 U.S. 570, 574–75 8 (1958). Under the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, 9 “the deadline to file and serve any points and authorities in response to [a] motion is 14 days 10 after service of the motion.” See D. Nev. LR 7-2(b). “The failure of an opposing party to file 11 points and authorities in response to any motion . . . constitutes a consent to the granting of the 12 motion.” D. Nev. LR 7-2(d). 13 Here, Defendant filed its Motion to Transfer Venue, (ECF No. 8), on June 1, 2020. 14 Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to Defendant’s Motion was June 15, 2020. Plaintiff has not 15 responded to the Motion, and the time to do so has passed.1 Under Local Rule 7-2(d), 16 Plaintiff’s failure to file points and authorities in response to the Motion “constitutes a consent 17 to the granting of the motion.” D. Nev. LR 7-2(d). Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to 18 Transfer Venue, (ECF No. 8), is granted. 19 /// 20 21 22 23 24 1 Indeed, at no point did Plaintiff attempt to obtain an extension from the Court, despite Local Rules permitting parties to file motions seeking deadline extensions. Cf. D. Nev. LR IA 6-1 (“A request [for extension] made after 25 the expiration of the specified period will not be granted unless the movant or attorney demonstrates that the failure to file the motion before the deadline expired was the result of excusable neglect.”); see D. Nev. LR 26-3. 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue, (ECF No. 8), 3 is GRANTED. 4 The Clerk of Court is directed to TRANSFER THIS CASE to the Eastern District of 5 California, Fresno Division under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 and close this case. 6 DATED this _1_7__ day of September, 2020. 7 8 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 9 United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25