1 || Patrick R. Leverty, Esq., NV Bar No. 8840 LEVERTY & ASSOCIATES LAW CHTD. 2 ||832 Willow Street Reno, NV 89502 3 ||Telephone: (775) 322-6636 Attorneys for Ram Challapalli 4 || and Sridevi Challapalli 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA RAM CHALLAPALLI, an individual, and Case No.: 3:25-cv-00422-ART-CSD 8 || SRIDEVI CHALLAPALLI, an individual, 9 Plaintiff, JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT 10 || vs. 1] || STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; DOES I through X; and ABC 12 || CORPORATIONS, et al. 13 Defendants Plaintiffs Ram Challapalli and Sridevi Challapalli (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant State 15 Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”), by and through counsel, hereby file the 16 following JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT. 17 1. A SHORT STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE, INCLUDING A 18 DESCRIPTION EACH CLAIM AND DEFENSE 19 A. Nature of Case 20 This 1s an insurance bad faith filed by Plaintiffs against their insurance company, State 1 ||Farm. On or about December 6, 2024, Plaintiffs experienced a water loss. Plaintiffs reported the 97 ||claim to State Farm. Plaintiffs’ plumber determined the water loss was caused by a sudden brea 93 |]in the shower pan. On February 14, 2025, State Farm denied the claim asserting the loss was due 74 ||to continuous and/or repeated seepage or leakage. Plaintiffs disagree with the denial. 25 B. Claims Asserted 6 Plaintiffs asserted three claims: (1) Breach of Insurance Contract, (2) Breach of the Duty 97 ||of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and (3) Statutory Bad Faith — Breach of Nevada’s Unfair Trade \ 28 ||Practices.
C. Defenses State Farm asserted the following affirmative defenses: (1) Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and each and every cause of action contained therein, fails to state a cause of action which relief can be ° granted; (2) Defendant State Farm has satisfied any and all duties owed to Plaintiffs under the terms of the insurance agreement that was created into with Plaintiff; (3) Defendant State Farm ° alleges Plaintiffs have no grounds to bring this suit under the terms of the relevant Policy; (4) The ° damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiffs, if any, were not caused by any breach of contract or duty by Defendant State Farm, but rather by the acts or omissions of third persons who were not acting on behalf of Defendant State Farm; (5) Defendant State Farm has not breached any ° contract; (6) Defendant State Farm substantially performed under the contract; (7) Defendant State Farm was justified in its failure to perform, if any; (8) Defendant State Farm at all times " herein acted reasonably and in good faith in discharging its obligations and duties, if any; (9) Coverage under the applicable policy of insurance is subject to all terms, conditions, provisions, ° definitions, limitations, exclusions and endorsements of such policy. Plaintiffs’ claim is barred, excluded, restricted, and/or limited accordingly; (10) Defendant State Farm is not subject to ° punitive damages based on the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint; (11) Defendant State Farm 1s entitled to assert any applicable offsets permitted by contract or law, if any, against the total " amount of damages awarded to Plaintiff by a jury for damages allegedly sustained in this action; (12) Defendant State Farm has acted reasonably and in good faith under the circumstances known " to Defendant State Farm and continues to do so; (13) Plaintiffs lack legal entitlements to assert a bad faith claim as contemplated by the Nevada Supreme Court in Pemberton v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 109 Nev. 789, 8 P.2d 380 (193); (14) the facts alleged by Plaintiffs are insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages, and any such claim for punitive damages is °° limited or prohibited by Nevada law and by the Constitution of the United States; (15) Defendant State Farm is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Plaintiffs cannot recover any amount for punitive damages alleged in the Complaint because NRS 42.005, pursuant to which *° punitive damages are sought, is void for vagueness, constitutes an unconstitutional penalty, violates specific State and Federal constitutional rights to procedural and substantive due process and equal protection under the laws thus exposing Defendant State Farm to punishment more than
1 ||once for the same alleged offense, violates the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment 2 |/of the United States Constitution, gives the finder of fact unlimited discretion in imposing 3 ||damages, and violates Defendant State Farm’s rights to procedural due process under the Fifth 4 ||and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; (16) The standard for punitive 5 ||damages fails to comply with the procedural and substantive requirements for punitive damages 6 ||set forth in State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. V. Campbell (2003) 538 U.S. 408 in that it 7 |\|lacks sufficiently objective criteria and procedural safeguards to give a jury adequate guidance 8 |/on an appropriate range of proportionality for punitive damages; (17) Defendant incorporates by 9 ||reference those affirmative defenses enumerated in F.R.C.P. 8 as if fully set forth herein. In the 10 |/event further investigation or discovery reveals the applicability of any such defenses, Defendant 11 ||reserves the right to seek leave of Court to amend this Answer to specifically assert any such 12 ||defenses. Such defenses are herein incorporated by reference for the specific purpose of not 13 || waiving any such defense; and (18) Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 11, as amended, all possible affirmative 14 ||defenses may not have been alleged herein, insofar as sufficient facts were not available after 15 ||reasonable inquiry, therefore, Defendant reserves the nght to amend its Answer to allege 16 ||additional affirmative defenses if subsequent investigation warrants. 17 }}2. JURISDICTIONAL BASIS FOR THE CASE 18 Defendant State Farm case was removed from the state court based on diversity 19 ||jurisdiction, specifically 28 U.S.C. §1332 and 28 U.S.C. §1441(b). Plaintiff is a resident of the 20 ||State of Nevada. Defendant is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in 21 || Illinois. 22 In the petition for removal, Defendant State Farm contends the amount in controversy as 23 being in excess of $75,000 (Doe. 1 at 3:2-5) 24 113, WHETHER ANY PARTY EXPECTS TO ADD ADDITIONAL PARTIES OR TO 55 OTHERWISE AMEND THE PLEADINGS. At this time, it is not anticipated that other parties will be added to the case or that the pleadings will be amended. 4. WHETHER THERE ARE ANY PENDING MOTIONS, INCLUDING A BRIEF 28 DESCRIPTION OF THOSE MOTIONS
] At this time, there are no pending motions. 2 1/5, WHETHER THIS CASE IS RELATED TO ANY OTHER CASE PENDING BEFORE THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, INCLUDING A BANKRUPTCY 3 COURT, AND, IF SO, PROVIDE A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE STATUS OF 4 THOSE CASE(S). There are no known related cases pending in any other court. ‘ 6. A COMPLETE AND DETAILED STATEMENT RELATED TO DISCOVERY A. Date the Rule 26(f) initial disclosures were provided 1. Plaintiffs: Plaintiffs will make initial disclosures on or before September 2, 2025. 2. Defendant: Defendant’s disclosures will be made on or before September 10 2, 2025. 11 B.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 || Patrick R. Leverty, Esq., NV Bar No. 8840 LEVERTY & ASSOCIATES LAW CHTD. 2 ||832 Willow Street Reno, NV 89502 3 ||Telephone: (775) 322-6636 Attorneys for Ram Challapalli 4 || and Sridevi Challapalli 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA RAM CHALLAPALLI, an individual, and Case No.: 3:25-cv-00422-ART-CSD 8 || SRIDEVI CHALLAPALLI, an individual, 9 Plaintiff, JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT 10 || vs. 1] || STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; DOES I through X; and ABC 12 || CORPORATIONS, et al. 13 Defendants Plaintiffs Ram Challapalli and Sridevi Challapalli (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant State 15 Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”), by and through counsel, hereby file the 16 following JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT. 17 1. A SHORT STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE, INCLUDING A 18 DESCRIPTION EACH CLAIM AND DEFENSE 19 A. Nature of Case 20 This 1s an insurance bad faith filed by Plaintiffs against their insurance company, State 1 ||Farm. On or about December 6, 2024, Plaintiffs experienced a water loss. Plaintiffs reported the 97 ||claim to State Farm. Plaintiffs’ plumber determined the water loss was caused by a sudden brea 93 |]in the shower pan. On February 14, 2025, State Farm denied the claim asserting the loss was due 74 ||to continuous and/or repeated seepage or leakage. Plaintiffs disagree with the denial. 25 B. Claims Asserted 6 Plaintiffs asserted three claims: (1) Breach of Insurance Contract, (2) Breach of the Duty 97 ||of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and (3) Statutory Bad Faith — Breach of Nevada’s Unfair Trade \ 28 ||Practices.
C. Defenses State Farm asserted the following affirmative defenses: (1) Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and each and every cause of action contained therein, fails to state a cause of action which relief can be ° granted; (2) Defendant State Farm has satisfied any and all duties owed to Plaintiffs under the terms of the insurance agreement that was created into with Plaintiff; (3) Defendant State Farm ° alleges Plaintiffs have no grounds to bring this suit under the terms of the relevant Policy; (4) The ° damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiffs, if any, were not caused by any breach of contract or duty by Defendant State Farm, but rather by the acts or omissions of third persons who were not acting on behalf of Defendant State Farm; (5) Defendant State Farm has not breached any ° contract; (6) Defendant State Farm substantially performed under the contract; (7) Defendant State Farm was justified in its failure to perform, if any; (8) Defendant State Farm at all times " herein acted reasonably and in good faith in discharging its obligations and duties, if any; (9) Coverage under the applicable policy of insurance is subject to all terms, conditions, provisions, ° definitions, limitations, exclusions and endorsements of such policy. Plaintiffs’ claim is barred, excluded, restricted, and/or limited accordingly; (10) Defendant State Farm is not subject to ° punitive damages based on the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint; (11) Defendant State Farm 1s entitled to assert any applicable offsets permitted by contract or law, if any, against the total " amount of damages awarded to Plaintiff by a jury for damages allegedly sustained in this action; (12) Defendant State Farm has acted reasonably and in good faith under the circumstances known " to Defendant State Farm and continues to do so; (13) Plaintiffs lack legal entitlements to assert a bad faith claim as contemplated by the Nevada Supreme Court in Pemberton v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 109 Nev. 789, 8 P.2d 380 (193); (14) the facts alleged by Plaintiffs are insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages, and any such claim for punitive damages is °° limited or prohibited by Nevada law and by the Constitution of the United States; (15) Defendant State Farm is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Plaintiffs cannot recover any amount for punitive damages alleged in the Complaint because NRS 42.005, pursuant to which *° punitive damages are sought, is void for vagueness, constitutes an unconstitutional penalty, violates specific State and Federal constitutional rights to procedural and substantive due process and equal protection under the laws thus exposing Defendant State Farm to punishment more than
1 ||once for the same alleged offense, violates the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment 2 |/of the United States Constitution, gives the finder of fact unlimited discretion in imposing 3 ||damages, and violates Defendant State Farm’s rights to procedural due process under the Fifth 4 ||and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; (16) The standard for punitive 5 ||damages fails to comply with the procedural and substantive requirements for punitive damages 6 ||set forth in State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. V. Campbell (2003) 538 U.S. 408 in that it 7 |\|lacks sufficiently objective criteria and procedural safeguards to give a jury adequate guidance 8 |/on an appropriate range of proportionality for punitive damages; (17) Defendant incorporates by 9 ||reference those affirmative defenses enumerated in F.R.C.P. 8 as if fully set forth herein. In the 10 |/event further investigation or discovery reveals the applicability of any such defenses, Defendant 11 ||reserves the right to seek leave of Court to amend this Answer to specifically assert any such 12 ||defenses. Such defenses are herein incorporated by reference for the specific purpose of not 13 || waiving any such defense; and (18) Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 11, as amended, all possible affirmative 14 ||defenses may not have been alleged herein, insofar as sufficient facts were not available after 15 ||reasonable inquiry, therefore, Defendant reserves the nght to amend its Answer to allege 16 ||additional affirmative defenses if subsequent investigation warrants. 17 }}2. JURISDICTIONAL BASIS FOR THE CASE 18 Defendant State Farm case was removed from the state court based on diversity 19 ||jurisdiction, specifically 28 U.S.C. §1332 and 28 U.S.C. §1441(b). Plaintiff is a resident of the 20 ||State of Nevada. Defendant is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in 21 || Illinois. 22 In the petition for removal, Defendant State Farm contends the amount in controversy as 23 being in excess of $75,000 (Doe. 1 at 3:2-5) 24 113, WHETHER ANY PARTY EXPECTS TO ADD ADDITIONAL PARTIES OR TO 55 OTHERWISE AMEND THE PLEADINGS. At this time, it is not anticipated that other parties will be added to the case or that the pleadings will be amended. 4. WHETHER THERE ARE ANY PENDING MOTIONS, INCLUDING A BRIEF 28 DESCRIPTION OF THOSE MOTIONS
] At this time, there are no pending motions. 2 1/5, WHETHER THIS CASE IS RELATED TO ANY OTHER CASE PENDING BEFORE THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, INCLUDING A BANKRUPTCY 3 COURT, AND, IF SO, PROVIDE A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE STATUS OF 4 THOSE CASE(S). There are no known related cases pending in any other court. ‘ 6. A COMPLETE AND DETAILED STATEMENT RELATED TO DISCOVERY A. Date the Rule 26(f) initial disclosures were provided 1. Plaintiffs: Plaintiffs will make initial disclosures on or before September 2, 2025. 2. Defendant: Defendant’s disclosures will be made on or before September 10 2, 2025. 11 B. A brief statement regarding what discovery requests have been served by 12 any party, who the requests were served upon, and the due dates for 13 responses to those requests. No discovery has been made at this time. 14 C, Whether the parties anticipate the need for a protective order relating to the 15 discovery of information relating to a trade secret or other confidential 16 research, development, or commercial information State Farm claims some of its documents are trade secrets; therefore, it is likely that a 17 protective order regarding certain commercial information may need to be entered. Counsel for 18 the parties have worked together before and have previously approved protective orders that 19 would be the basis for any stipulated protective order. 20 D. Any issues or proposals relating to the timing, sequencing, phasing or 21 scheduling of discovery 22 None. 23 E. Whether the parties anticipate the need to take discovery outside of the District of Nevada or the United States, and, if so, a description of the 24 proposed discovery 25 It is likely certain percipient witnesses from Defendant, as well as Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26 ||30(b)(6) witnesses for Defendant, are located outside the State of Nevada, and would need to be 27 ||deposed from their respective locations. \ 28
1 Any experts who are not residents of the State of Nevada would need to be deposed in 2 ||their respective locations. 3 It is anticipated that all witnesses who would be deposed reside within the United States. 4 F. A summary of the number of depositions each party anticipates taking, information related to the anticipated location of those depositions, and 5 whether any party anticipates video and/or sound recording of depositions 6 Plaintiff anticipates taking 1-2 percipient witness depositions, plus Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 7 ||30(b)(6) witness(es), as well as expert deposition(s). 8 Defendant anticipates taking the depositions of both Plaintiffs, as well as expert 9 || deposition(s). 10 A BRIEF STATEMENT REGARDING THE TYPES OF ESI EXPECTED IN THE CASE, WHERE THE ESI IS LOCATED, A STATEMENT OF ANY 11 AGREEMENTS REACHED BY THE PARTIES RELATED TO ESI ON THE ISSUES LISTED ABOVE, AND ANY OUTSTANDING DISAGREEMENTS 12 BETWEEN THE PARTIES RELATED TO ESI. 13 The ESI at issue in this case would be the electronic claim file(s). At this time, the parties 14 ||have agreed that production of the claim file(s) in PDF and other readily readable formats (such 15 |/as jpg or .tiff for images) is agreeable, with originals being retained in their original format in 16 ||the unlikely event that an issue regarding ESI for that specific original document arises. 17 ||8, WHETHER A JURY TRIAL HAS BEEN REQUESTED, WHETHER THE REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL IS CONTESTED UF THE REQUEST IS 18 CONTESTED, SET FORTH REASONS) AND AN ESTIMATED LENGTH FOR 19 TRIAL Defendant has answered the complaint. On September ??, 2025, Plaintiff filed a jury 20 demand. (Doc. 15). The parties anticipate the trial will take five (5) days. 21 9, A STATEMENT AS TO THE POSSIBILITY OF SETTLEMENT AND WHEN 22 THE PARTIES DESIRE A COURT SPONSORED SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, LE. BEFORE FURTHER DISCOVERY, AFTER DISCOVERY, 23 AFTER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS, ETC. 24 The parties discussed the potential for settlement. At this time, the parties believe any 25 ||court sponsored settlement conference would be more productive after some discovery has 26 || occurred. 27 1/10. WHETHER THE PARTIES INTEND TO PROCEED BEFORE THE \ 3g MAGISTRATE JUDGE
] The parties discussed the possibility of trial by the Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 2 ||636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 73 and agree this case is properly suited before the District Court. 3 //11. WHETHER EITHER PARTY REQUESTS BIFURCATION OR PHASING OF TRIAL OR HAS ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS FOR SHORTENING OR 4 EXPEDITING DISCOVERY, PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS OR TRIAL. 5 No. 6//12, WHETHER EITHER PARTY REQUESTS BIFURCATION OR PHASING OF TRIAL OR ANY OTHER SUGGESTION FOR SHORTENING OR EXPEDITING 7 DISCOVRY, PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS OR TRIAL. 8 The parties do not request bifurcation or phasing of trial. 9 IT IS SO AGREED. 10 || DATED: September 9, 2025 DATED: September 9, 2025 11 ||LEVERTY & ASSOCIATES LAW CHTD. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH 12 /S/ Patrick Leverty /S/ Francis Arenas 13 ||Patrick R. Leverty, Esq. Francis A. Arenas, Esq. 832 Willow Street 6385 S. Rainbow Blvd., Suite 600 14 |/Reno, NV 89502 Las Vegas, NV 89118 Attorneys for Ram Challapalli 15 || and Sridevi Challapalli Attorneys for Defendant 6 State Farm Fire and Casualty Company. 17 ORDER 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Cc Ss 20 UNITED STATES ISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 DATED: September 9, 2025 23 24 25 26 27 \ 28
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 Pursuant to FRCP 5(b), I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that am an employee o 3 ||Leverty & Associates Law, Chtd., and that service of the foregoing JOINT CASE 4 ||MANAGEMENT REPORT was made CM/ECF to all parties on the Service List including: Robert Freeman, Jr., Esq. 6 ||| Francis Arenas, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH 7 6385 S. Rainbow Blvd., Suite 600 Las Vegas, NV 89118 8 ||| Telephone: 702/893-3383 Facsimile: 702/893-3789 9 |!| Robert.freeman@lewisbrisbois.com Francis.Arenas@lewisbrisbois.com 10 || Attorneys for Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Compan DATED: September 9, 2025 12 13 14 An Employee off{Leverty & Associates Law Chtd. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 \ 28