Arch Insurance Company v. Hardy ( 2024 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Arch Insurance Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-00370-CDS-EJY 5 Order Granting Defendant’s Request to Plaintiff Reassign Divisions 6 v. [ECF No. 37] 7 Daniel Hardy, et al., 8 Defendants 9 10 11 This is an insurance dispute. Defendant Daniel Hardy moves to reassign this case to this 12 District’s Northern Division. ECF No. 37. He argues that nothing in this interpleader action has 13 any connection to the Southern Division, where this action currently sits, other than it is where 14 Thayer’s counsel resides. Id. Hardy further argues that the Northern Division is the appropriate 15 division for this action to be heard because the collision giving rise to the parties’ claims 16 occurred in the Northern Division (Lander County). Id. Defendants Cindy Thayer and Scott 17 Thayer oppose, arguing that the request for reassignment is untimely and thus waived, as it 18 should have been made over nine months ago. ECF No. 40. I find that transfer is appropriate in 19 this case. 20 “‘There is no time limit within which a motion to transfer under Section 1404(a) must be 21 made, and the motion will not be denied merely because [it] is filed some time after suit is 22 commenced and some progress is made on the pre-trial phase of the case.’” Ancora Techs., Inc. v. 23 Toshiba Am. Info. Sys., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144036, *11 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2009) (quoting 17 24 Moore’s Federal Practice § 111.17[2][a]). Instead, a court must determine if there is a clear and 25 convincing showing of excessive delay and resulting prejudice. See, e.g., In Re: Horseshoe Ent., 337 26 F.3d 429, 434 (5th Cir. 2003). 1 Here, even if I were to find the delay in this case excessive (which I do not), the Thayer 2|| defendants have made no argument, nor does there appear to be one, that moving this case to the 3} Northern District will result in prejudice. See generally ECF No. 40. Instead, it appears that 4|| transferring the case will be more convenient for all parties and witnesses. Indeed, all of the parties and nearly all of the witnesses in this action reside in the Northern Division and the underlying car accident occurred there. ECF No. 41 at 3. Further, I consulted with Judge Traum, 7|| to whom this case would transfer, and she agrees that transfer is appropriate. 8 Accordingly, having considered Local Rule 42-1, together with the other information set forth in this order, we find that on balance, despite the delay, the relevant factors weigh in favor of intra-district transfer. For the convenience of the parties and witnesses, we agree to transfer Il} this case to the unofficial Northern Division. 12 Conclusion B IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Hardy’s motion to reassign divisions [ECF No. 37] is 14|| GRANTED. This case is reassigned to District Judge Anne R. Traum in the unofficial Northern 15]] Division of Nevada and Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney. 16 Dated: June 3, 2024 / /] 18 vn HAD. Silva . ib ates District Judge Apa Nosed 1d 20 Anne R. Traum 7] United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26