N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ODYSSEY REINSUR

ANC E C OM PANY, a C onne c tic ut c orporation,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. R IC HARD KEITH NAGB Y; DIANE NAGB Y, AKA Dia

ne Dosta lik; PAC IFIC B R OKER S INSUR

ANC E SER

VIC ES, a Ne va da c orporation; C AL-REGENT INSUR ANC E SER

VIC ES C ORPOR ATION, a

C a lifornia c orporation; C LAIM S TEC HNOLOGY SER VIC ES C ORPOR

ATION, a

C a lifornia c orporation; DAVID DOSTALIK; AM T R UST NOR TH AM ER IC A, INC ., a De la ware c o rporation, De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s,
v. KNIGHT INSUR

ANC E C OM PANY, LTD., Propose d Inte rve nor,

M ova nt-Appe lla

n t. No. 19-55346

D.C . No. 3:16-c v-03038-B TM -W VG
M EM O R ANDUM * 

# FIL ED

SEP 2 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.ODYSSEY REINSUR ANC E C OM PANY, a C onne c tic ut c orporation,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. R IC HARD KEITH NAGB Y; DIANE NAGB Y, AKA Dia

ne Dosta lik; PAC IFIC B R OKER S INSUR

ANC E SER

VIC ES, a Ne va da c orporation; C AL-REGENT INSUR ANC E SER

VIC ES C ORPOR ATION, a

C a lifornia c orporation; C LAIM S TEC HNOLOGY SER VIC ES C ORPOR

ATION, a

C a lifornia c orporation; DAVID DOSTALIK; AM T R UST NOR TH AM ER IC A, INC ., a De la ware c o rporation, De fe nda n ts,
v. KNIGHT INSUR

ANC E C OM PANY, LTD., Propose d Inte rve nor,

M ova nt-Appe lla

n t. No. 19-55347

D.C . No. 3:16-c v-03038-B TM -W VG

ODYSSEY REINSUR

ANC E C OM PANY, a C onne c tic ut c orporation,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. No. 19-55423 D.C . No. 3:16-c v-03038-B TM -W VG

2R IC HARD KEITH NAGB Y, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt,
and DIANE NAGB Y, AKA Dia ne Dosta lik; PAC IFIC B R O KER S INSUR ANC E SER VIC ES, a Ne va da c orporation; C ALREGENT INSUR

ANC E SER

VIC ES C ORPOR ATION, a

C a lifornia c orporation; C LAIM S TEC HNOLOGY SER VIC ES C ORPOR

ATION, a

C a lifornia c orporation; DAVID DOSTALIK; AM T R UST NOR TH AM ER IC A, INC ., a De la ware c o rporation, De fe nda n ts,
v. KNIGHT INSUR

ANC E C OM PANY, LTD., Propose d Inte rve nor,

M ova nt. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia B arry Te d M oskowitz , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 14, 2020 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). 3B e fore : WARDLAW and C LIFTON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd C HOE-GR OVES, *** Judge
. Knight Insura

nc e C om pa ny a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing its m otion to inte

rve ne (No. 19-55346) a

nd from a subse que nt orde r disbursing the distric t c o urt’ s re g istry funds to Ody sse y R e insura nc e C om pa ny (No. 19-55347). 1 W e a ffirm

the de nia l of Knight’ s m otion to inte rve ne and dismiss Knight’ s a ppe a l from the disburse m e nt orde r. In 2015, Ody s se y

R e insura nc e C om p any won a $3.2 m illion judgm

e nt
a ga inst C a l -R e g e nt Insura n c e Se rvic e s C orporat ion for bre a c h of c ontra c t. To
avoid tha t judgm e nt, C a l-R e ge nt’ s princ ipa ls, Ric ha rd an d Dia

ne Na gby , transfe rre d C a l -R e ge nt’ s a sse ts to Pa c ific B roke rs Insura nc e Se rvic e s (PB IS), a
suc c e ssor c om

pa ny , and the n sold m ost of PB IS’ s a sse ts to AmTrust North Am e ric a for $5 m illion. To re c ove r on its judgme nt, Ody sse y initia te d the unde rly ing dive rsity

c a s e a ga inst thepa

rtie s involve d in the tra

nsfe r of C a lR e ge nt’ s a s se ts.

* * * The Honora

ble Je nnife r C h oe -Grove s, Judge for the Unite d State s C ourt of Inte rnationa l Tra de , sitting by de s igna tion.
1 Those a

ppe a ls we re c onsolida

t e d with R

ic ha rd Na gby ’ s a

ppe a l from the s am e disburse m e nt orde r (No. 19-55423). Following R ic ha rd Na gby ’ s pe tition for c h a pte r 7 ba nkruptc y , file d

in August 2019, the a

ppe a ls a s to him

we re a dm inistra

tive ly c lose d . Our de c ision thus doe s not a pply to him
. 4In Oc tobe r 2017, the distric t c ourt orde re d PB IS, C a l-R e ge nt, a n d the Na gby s to deposit into the c ourt’ s re gistry

a ll funds re c e ive d

for the sa le of PB IS
and a ny re m a ining pa

ym e n t s Am Trust owe d. Tha t sa m e m onth, Ody sse y

obta ine d
a de fa ult judgm e nt a ga inst C a l-R e ge nt a nd PB IS. Whe n tha

t judgm e nt be c am e fina l a n d no a ppe a l wa s ta

ke n, Ody sse y

file d a m otion to disburse

the re gistry funds, c l a im i n g a

right to do so a s PB IS’ s judgm e nt c re ditor. At a lat e sta ge , Knight Insura nc e C om pa ny file d a m otion to inte

rve ne , a sse rting a

c o m pe ting inte re st in there gistry funds a s a

puta t ive c re ditor of C a l-R e ge nt. The distric t c ourt he ld tha t Knight wa s not e ligibleto inte rve ne a s a
m atte r of right unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C i vil Proc e dure 24(a ) be c a use Knight did not have a “ signific ant prote c ta ble inte re st” in the re gistry funds a nd did not file

a tim e ly m otion, a n d the c ourt de nie d pe rm i ssive inte rve ntion unde r R ule 24(b) be c a use of untim e l ine ss a

nd pre judic e to the e xisting pa

rtie s. B a se d on the re c ord, we c onc lude tha t the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in finding Knight’ s m otion untime l y . B e c a use “ [t] im e line ss is the thre shold re quire m e nt for inte rve ntion,” we ne e d a ddre ss no othe r ba sis to a ffirm the d e nia l of Knight’ s m otion. Unite d State s v . Ore gon , 913 F.2d 576, 588, 589 (9th C ir. 1990); se e Fe d . R . C iv. P. 24 (be g inning subse c tions (a) and (b) with the words “ [o] n tim e ly

m otion” ).
5Knight’ s inte rve ntion would ha ve a dde d de la y and e xpe nse to a

c a se ne aring its re solution. Knight file d its m otion a fte r the pa rtie s ha d a lre a dy fully brie fe d
sum m ary judgm e nt, one y e ar a fte r the de a dline to file joinde r m otions, se ve n
m onths a fte r disc ove ry

c lose d, a nd five m onths a fte r the m otion c utoff da te . Though Knight c la im e d to be a c re ditor, it ha d ta

ke n no step s to obta i n a

judgm e nt
a ga inst a ny de fe nda nt, som e thing Ody sse y

ha d long sinc e a c c om

plishe d. As a
re sult, Knight’ s inte rve ntion would ha ve a lso broa de ne d

the sc ope of issue s to be
re solve d in this c a se . C onside ring a ll the c irc um sta nc e s, it wa s we ll within the c ourt’ s disc re tion to find tha

t Knight’ s “ unre a s ona

ble de la y in m oving to inte

rve n e ” would c a

u se pre j udic e to the pa

rtie s if the m otion we re grante d. Although Knight a rgue s tha t it

“ m ove d to inte rve n e prom p tly ” a fte r it le a

rne d of Ody sse y ’ s la

wsuit, Knight points to only the de c l a ra tion of its Pre side nt, Am it Sha h, who spe aks of his pe rsona l knowle dge but sa

y s nothing a

bout theknowle dge of Knight’ s othe r offic e rs or
e m ploy e e s. R e ga

rdle ss, the distric t c ourt c orre c tly he ld tha t , a s a c re ditor of C a lR e ge nt, Knight “

re a sona bly should ha

ve known” a

bout thela

wsuit sooner. Smith
v . L.A. Unifie d Sc h. Dist. , 830 F.3d 843, 852 (9th C ir. 2016). B e c a use Knight’ s m otion wa s untim e ly , we a ffirm the orde r de ny i ng inte rve ntion a s of right under R ule 24(a ) an d pe rm issive inte rve ntion unde r R ule
624(b). Knight lac ke d sta nding to a ppe a l from

any subse que n t orde r. W e the re fore dism iss Knight’ s a

ppe a l from

the orde r disbursing re g istry funds to Ody sse y . AFFIRM E D (19-55346). DISM I SSE D (19-55347).

7