Ram Challapali and Sridevi Challapalli v. State Farm Life and Casualty Company; Does I through X; ABC Corporations A-Z, inclusive

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 28, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00422
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 RAM CHALLAPALI and SRIDEVI Case No. 3:25-cv-00422-ART-CSD CHALLAPALLI, 4 ORDER ON MOTION TO REMAND Plaintiffs, (ECF No. 10) 5 v.

6 STATE FARM LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; DOES I through X; ABC 7 CORPORATIONS A-Z, inclusive,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Plaintiffs Ram and Sridevi Challapalli sued Defendants State Farm Life and 11 Casualty Company, Does I-X, and ABC Corporations A-Z in state court alleging 12 that Defendants breached their homeowner’s insurance policy by failing to 13 indemnify them following the sudden break of their shower pan. (ECF No. 1-1 at 14 4.) Plaintiffs alleged a breach of the insurance contract, breach of the duty of good 15 faith and fair dealing, and breach of Nevada’s unfair trade practices statute. (Id. 16 at 8-10.) Defendants removed the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 based on diversity 17 jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Plaintiffs moved to remand based on lack of subject 18 matter jurisdiction, arguing that the amount in controversy is under $75,000. 19 (ECF No. 10.) Defendants did not respond to the motion. Because the motion is 20 unopposed, the Court remands the case to the Second Judicial District Court for 21 the State of Nevada. 22 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW 23 A defendant may only remove a case brought in state court if the federal 24 district court would have original jurisdiction over the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 25 Federal courts “strictly construe the removal statute against removal 26 jurisdiction.” Hansen v. Grp. Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2018) 27 (citing Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 28 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010)). 1 When parties contest the amount-in-controversy, and the amount is not 2 || evident from the face of the complaint, the court decides by a preponderance of 3 || the evidence after both sides submit evidence. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., 4 || LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 88 (2014); 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B). Only Plaintiff 5 || has submitted evidence to the Court, and the motion is unopposed. “The failure 6 || of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion, 7 || except a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 or a motion for attorney’s fees, 8 || constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.” LR 7-2(d). 9 II. CONCLUSION 10 Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs motion to remand (ECF No. 10). 11 The Court also instructs the Clerk to remand the case to the Second 12 || Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada. 13 The Court also instructs the Clerk to close the case. 14 15 DATED THIS 28t day of October, 2025. 16 oan — Arve Howted Im ANNE R. TRAUM 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28