Arch Insurance Company v. Hardy et al

Filing 46

ORDER Granting 37 Motion to Reassign Case. This case is reassigned to District Judge Anne R. Traum in the unofficial Northern Division of Nevada and Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney. Signed by Judge Cristina D. Silva and Judge Anne R. Traum on 6/3/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - RJDG)

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

2
3
4 Arch Insurance Company,
5
6

Plaintiff
v.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00370-CDS-EJY
Order Granting Defendant’s Request to
Reassign Divisions
[ECF No. 37]

7 Daniel Hardy, et al.,
Defendants

8
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).