Naff et al v. State Farm General Insurance Company

Filing 37

PRETRIAL ORDER, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/1/2016. Motions in Limine: Filed by 7/15/2016; Opposition by 7/22/2016; Hearing set for 8/1/2016 at 08:30 AM in Bakersfield at 510 19th Street (JLT) before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. Trial Submissions due by 7/22/2016. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE
)
COMPANY,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________________)
)
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM
)
HALONDA NAFF, et al,

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00515 JLT
PRETRIAL ORDER
Deadlines:
Motions in Limine Filing: 7/15/16
Oppositions to Motions in Limine: 7/22/16
Hearing on Motions in Limine: 8/1/16, 8:30 a.m.
Trial Submissions: 7/22/16

In this action, the plaintiffs claim State Farm improperly refused to pay on their homeowner’s

19
20

policy after the contents of their home were destroyed in a fire. They bring various causes of action

21

including breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and infliction of

22

emotional distress.

23

State Farm has filed a counterclaim in which it seeks declaratory relief that the policy was

24

voided due to fraud, that the Naffs have failed to satisfy conditions precedent to State Farm’s obligation

25

to pay insurance proceeds and for a determination of the amount of proceeds that should have been paid

26

to the Naffs and the amount State Farm has overpaid to them.

27

A.

28

JURISDICTION/ VENUE
The Court has diversity jurisdiction over the claims in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
1

1

Further, the plaintiff’s claims arise out of events that occurred in Kern County, California.

2

Accordingly, venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

3

sitting in Bakersfield. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

4

B.

5

JURY TRIAL
The trial will be by jury. The Court intends to seat eight jurors. Each side will have four

6

peremptory challenges.

7

C.

8
9

UNDISPUTED FACTS
a.

HALONDA NAFF and JARVIS NAFF are owners of the home located at 331 Donna

Avenue, Bakersfield, California.

10

b.

STATE FARM issued to HALONDA NAFF as named insured, Homeowners’ Policy

11

87-BX-Q354-5, with a policy period of May 1, 2012 to May 1, 2013 providing coverage for the

12

NAFFS’ interest in a personal residence and its contents at 331 Donna Avenue, Bakersfield,

13

California. The Policy provided coverage, subject to its stated terms, conditions, limitations, and

14

exclusions, for losses to real and personal property at the premises. A true and correct copy of the

15

Policy is attached as Exhibit “A” to the Counterclaim.

16
17

c.

On December 26, 2012, a fire damaged said home and personal property belonging to

NAFFS.

18

d.

The NAFFS timely reported the claim to STATE FARM

19

e.

On or about May 30, 2013, NAFFS presented an inventory of personal property they

20

claim was damaged by the December 26, 2012 fire and requested financial compensation for the lost

21

and damaged personal property.

22

f.

Thereafter, NAFFS submitted a revised loss inventory to STATE FARM on August 15,

24

g.

The NAFFS, on request, appeared for an examination under oath on March 18, 2014.

25

h.

On December 5, 2014, STATE FARM advised NAFFS that the claim was denied and

23

2013.

26

that NAFFS policy was void as a result of the material misrepresentation and concealment in

27

connection with the claim.

28

D.

DISPUTED FACTS
2

1
2

All other facts in this case remain in dispute including but not limited to all facts relating to the
following:

3
4

a.

Whether the NAFFS had personal property losses consistent with the inventory of

personal property submitted to STATE FARM;

5

b.

Whether the NAFFS cooperated in the investigation of the claim;

6

c.

Whether the NAFFS complied with policy conditions with respect to the claim;

7

d.

Whether NAFFS made material misrepresentations of facts and concealment of

8

documents in the investigation of the claim;

9

e.

Whether there is coverage under the Policy for any portion of the claim;

10

f.

Whether STATE FARM conducted an adequate and/or fair investigation of the

11

Plaintiffs’ claim;

12

g.

Whether STATE FARM wrongfully denied the Plaintiffs’ claim and voided the policy;

13

h.

Whether STATE FARM’s conduct was in conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs

14

and was the result of malice and oppression.

15

E.

16
17

DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES
Those set forth in the motions in limine to be filed.

F.

SPECIAL FACTUAL INFORMATION – CONTRACT ACTION

18

Plaintiffs’ position

19

(a)

In May 2012, Defendant State Farm issued Policy No. 87-BX-Q354-4, which was

20

supposed to provide insurance coverage in the amount of $154,300 for the dwelling, $15,430 for the

21

dwelling extension, and $115,725 for personal property in the event such property was lost and/or

22

destroyed, including in the event of a fire. In exchange, the Naffs agreed to pay their premiums, which

23

they did in a timely manner.

24
25
26
27
28

(b)

The terms and conditions of the insurance agreement between the parties were set forth

in State Farm’s Insurance Policy No. 87-BX-Q354-4.
(c)

None by Plaintiffs. State Farm misrepresented that it would provide the insurance

coverage but failed to do so.
(d) Defendant State Farm breached the terms of the contract by refusing to provide coverage
3

1

for the contents of the home which were indisputably destroyed by a horrific fire. In addition,

2

Defendant unreasonably delayed and/or failed to conduct a reasonable or fair investigation into the

3

claim and instead designed a scheme to deny the claim and void the policy altogether.

4

(e) Defendant State Farm is estopped from relying on the Plaintiffs’ prior bankruptcy as

5

a basis for denying the claim as it was not one of the reasons provided by State Farm for denying the

6

Plaintiffs’ claim and voiding the insurance policy. See Code of Regulations, Title 10, Chapter 5,

7

Subchapter 7.5, section 2695.7(b)(1); Spray, Gould & Bowers v. Associated International Ins. Co., 71

8

Cal.App.4th 1260, 1268-1269 and 1271-1272 (1999); City of Hollister v. Monterey Insurance

9

Company, 165 Cal.App.4th 455, 489, 492, and 500 (2008); Superior Dispatch v. Insurance

10

Corporation of New York, 176 Cal.App.4th 12, 17-21, 24-27 (2009). The basis for estoppel can be

11

found in a party’s silence “when he is under a duty to speak.” Dittamanto v. Lompoc Union High

12

School District, 143 Cal.App 2d 715, 721 (1956); Chapis v. County of Monterey, 97 Cal.App.3d 249,

13

262 (1979); Drennan v. Oliver, 24 Cal.App.3d 571, 581 (1972); Inter-Corp v. Hartford Accident &

14

Indemnity Co., 952 F.2d 1551, 1559 (9th Cir. 1991); B & E Convalescent Center and State

15

Compensation Ins. Fund, 8 Cal.App.4th 78, 86, fn 7 (1992); Phoenix Ins. Co., v. United States Fire,

16

189 Cal.App.3d 1511, 1527 (1987); Miller v. Elite, 100 Cal. App. 3d 739, 754 (1980); Wetherbee v.

17

United Insurance Company of America, 18 Cal.App.3d 266, 270 (1971); Mullen v. Glens Falls

18

Insurance Co., 73 Cal.App.3d 163, 173 (1977); Austero v. National Casualty Company, 84 Cal.App.3d

19

1, 32 (1978); Amato v. Mercury Casualty, 53 Cal. App. 4th 825 (1997); Filipino Industries v. Sun

20

Insurance Co., 74 Cal. App. 4th 1429, 1441 (1999).

21
22
23
24
25

In addition, State Farm waived any position of judicial estoppel by failing to raise it as an
affirmative defense. See Fed. R. Civ. P 8(c).
Additional waiver and unclean hands exist because the Defendant knew about the bankruptcy
petition but still advanced a partial payment for personal property loss.
(f)

In terms of their breach of contract claim, Plaintiffs seek to recover the full benefits

26

owed for the loss of personal property damage ($115,725) plus interest accrued from the date of the

27

loss, general damages including pain and suffering and emotional distress, attorney’s fees and costs,

28

and punitive damages as a result of State Farm’s bad faith.
4

1

(g)

Plaintiffs seek to recover the full benefits owed for the loss of personal property

2

damage ($115,725) plus interest accrued from the date of the loss, general damages including pain and

3

suffering and emotional distress, attorney’s fees and costs, and punitive damages as a result of State

4

Farm’s bad faith.

5

Defendant’s position

6

(a) State Farm issued to Halonda Naff as named insured Homeowners’ Policy 87-BX-Q354-5,

7

with a policy period of May 1, 2012 to May 1, 2013 providing coverage for the Naffs’ interest in a

8

personal residence and its contents at 331 Donna Avenue, Bakersfield, California. The Policy

9

provided coverage, subject to its stated terms, conditions, limitations, and exclusions, for losses to real

10

and personal property at the premises. The parties have stipulated that policy states, in part:

11

SECTION I – CONDITIONS

12

2.
Your Duties After Loss. After a loss to which this insurance may apply, you
shall see that the following duties are performed:

13

c.
prepare an inventory of damaged or stolen personal property. Show in detail the
quantity, description, age, replacement cost and amount of loss. Attach to the inventory
all bills, receipts and related documents that substantiate the figures in the inventory;

14
15

d.

16

as often as we reasonably require:
(2)
provide us with records and documents we request and permit us to
make copies;
…

17
18

6.
Suit Against Us. No action shall be brought unless there has been compliance
with the policy provisions. The action must be started within one year after the date of
loss or damage.

19
20

…

21

SECTION I AND SECTION II – CONDITIONS

22

2.
Concealment or Fraud. This policy is void as to you and any other insured, if
you or any other insured under this policy has intentionally concealed or
misrepresented any material fact or circumstance relating to this insurance, whether
before or after a loss.

23
24
25

(b)

There were no oral or written modifications or collateral agreements.

26

(c)

State Farm submits that the misrepresentation of material facts pertaining to the
insurance voided the policy by their conduct as follows:

27
28

a.

Intentionally discarding, and therefore concealing from STATE FARM,
documents, including financial documents pertaining to the personal property
on the loss inventories submitted which were requested for purposes of
5

evaluating the claim;
b.
Misrepresentation and concealment concerning the existence and amount of
inventory which was purportedly damaged; and grossly inflating the value and quantity
of items allegedly damaged.

1
2
3
4

When faced with manifest overvaluation of a claim a court is justified in inferring that the

5

overstatement was deliberate, voiding a claim on the fraud provision of the policy. Hyland v. Millers

6

National Insurance Company, 91 F.2d 735, 743 (9th Cir. 1937.)

7

(d)

State Farm submits that Plaintiffs voided the contract with their fraudulent

8

misrepresentations. In the alternative, State Farm submits that Plaintiffs breached their duties of

9

cooperation in the contract by failing to provide material documentation pertaining to their claim for

10

damages to personal property required by the language of the policy. The provisions of the insurance

11

policy and California case law require a claimant to provide the insurer with adequate information in

12

order to fully process, investigate and evaluate a claim. Globe Indem. Co. v. Superior Court (Los

13

Angeles), 6 Cal. App. 4th 725, 731 (1992). Indeed, the contractual obligation to provide policy

14

proceeds does not arise until the claimant provides the insurer with adequate and sufficient

15

information to support a claim. Id.

16
17

(e)

As set forth in its Motion for Summary Judgment State Farm submits that Plaintiffs are

judicially estopped from presenting evidence inconsistent with their bankruptcy petition.

18

(f)(g) Relief sought: As set forth in greater detail in §7b, infra, State Farm seeks recovery of

19

the $169,088.12 already paid to or on behalf of the Naffs in connection with the claim, as well as an

20

additional $31,005.05 of unnecessary investigation expenses incurred as a result of the factually false

21

claim.

22

G.

23
24

RELIEF SOUGHT
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, in the form of economic and noneconomic losses and

punitive damages. They seek also attorney’s fees, costs, prejudgment and post judgment interest.

25

On their counterclaim, State Farm seeks reimbursement for payments made pursuant for the

26

dwelling repair and additional living expenses, as well as the advance payments made for personal

27

property. State Farm also seeks reimbursement for the cost for investigating the “factually false

28

claim.”
6

1

///

2

H.

3
4

Set forth in the joint statement
I.

5
6
7

POINTS OF LAW

ABANDONED ISSUES
None.

J.

WITNESSES
The following is a list of witnesses that the parties expect to call at trial, including rebuttal and

8

impeachment witnesses. NO WITNESS, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION,

9

MAY BE CALLED AT TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING

10

THAT THIS ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. R.

11

Civ. P. 16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(10).

12

No later than July 8, 2016, counsel for the defendant will notify counsel for the plaintiffs

13

whether all employees/contractors of State Farm will be produced without need for a subpoena.

14

Plaintiffs will produce themselves and their children at trial without need for a subpoena. Counsel will

15

meet and confer to schedule witnesses so they can be timely produced without disrupting the flow of

16

the trial.

17

Plaintiffs’ Witness List:

18

1. Halonda Naff (as plaintiff, percipient witness and expert)

19

2. Jarvis Naff

20

3. Jalasia Naff

21

4. Jarvis Naff Jr.

22

5. Jeremy King

23

6. Joshlyn Naff

24

7. Sharon Endsley

25

8. David Coston

26

9. Rodney Woods

27

10. James Smith

28

11. James Stemler
7

1

12. Jill Petrarca

2

13. Michael Avery

3

14. Michael Byrum

4

15. Thomas Collier

5

16. Scott Johnson

6

17. Jean Daly

7

18. Jennifer Molina

8

19. Curtis Floyd

9

20. Henry Pacheo

10

21. Person Most Knowledgeable from State Farm regarding its financial condition

11

22. David Peterson (expert)

12

Plaintiffs reserve the right to call any and all witnesses identified by Defendant and any

13

witnesses for impeachment purposes.

14

Defendants’ Witness List:

15

1.

16

includes1:

17

2.

Person Most Knowledgeable/Custodian of Records from AAA Mini Storage

18

3.

PMK/COR Kern Medical Center

19

4.

PMK/COR Owens Valley Career Development Center

20

5.

PMK/COR Kern Federal Credit Union

21

6.

PMK/COR Curran Middle School/Bakersfield City School District

22

7.

PMK/COR Kern High School District

23

8.

PMK/COR Scott’s Youth Facility

24

9.

PMK/COR PCL Industrial Services, Inc.

25

10.

PMK/COR Chase Bank

26

11.

PMK/COR Kay Jewelers

Defendant’s list includes all of the witnesses identified by the plaintiffs and also

27
28

1

Defendant clarifies that it identifies James Smith, James Stemler, Jean Daly, Jill Petrarca, Michael Avery, Michael
Bynum, Sharon Endsley and Thomas Collier as experts and as percipient witnesses.

8

1

12.

PMK Bakersfield Police Department

2

13.

Christopher Peck

3

14.

James Jones

4

15.

Juan Orozco

5

16.

Chad Garrett

6

17.

Jess Beagley

7

18.

Edgar Aguilera

8

19.

Carlos Benavidez

9

20.

Dan Brown

10

21.

PMK/COR Bakersfield Fire Department

11

22.

Arlene Sanders

12

23.

Crystal Sanders

13

24.

Stephen Thomas

14

25.

Dee Barrientos

15

26.

PMK Farmers Insurance Company

16
17

K.

EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES AND SUMMARIES
The following is a list of documents or other exhibits that the parties expect to offer at trial.

18

NO EXHIBIT, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY BE ADMITTED

19

UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER SHOULD BE

20

MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(11).

21

Plaintiffs’ Exhibits

22

1. State Farm Insurance Policy and Declarations Page

23

2. Photographs

24

3. Interview of Sharon Endsley (audio and transcription)

25

4. Audio Interview of Halonda Naff (audio and transcription)

26

5. Audio Interview of Halonda Naff (audio and transcription)

27

6. Audio Interview of Jarvis Naff (audio and transcription)

28

7. Audio Interview of Jarvis Naff (audio and transcription)
9

1

8. Excerpts of State Farm Operations Guide

2

9. Endsley List

3

10. Excerpts from State Farm Claims File

4

11. Naff Inventory (May)

5

12. Naff Inventory (August)

6

13. Excerpts from State Farm Guidelines

7

14. December 5, 2014 letter to Plaintiffs from State Farm

8

15. Excerpts from David Peterson file

9

16. Floor Plan of Plaintiffs’ home

10

17. Select exhibits attached to deposition of Curtis Floyd

11

18. Select exhibits attached to deposition of David Coston

12

19. Select exhibits attached to deposition of David Peterson

13

20. Select exhibits attached to deposition of Halonda Naff

14

21. Select exhibits attached to deposition of Jarvis Naff

15

22. Select exhibits attached to deposition of James Smith

16

23. Select exhibits attached to deposition of James Stemler

17

24. Select exhibits attached to deposition of Jean Daly

18

25. Select exhibits attached to deposition of Jill Petrarca

19

26. Select exhibits attached to deposition of Michael Avery

20

27. Select exhibits attached to deposition of Michael Bynum

21

28. Select exhibits attached to deposition of Sharon Endsley

22

29. Select exhibits attached to deposition of Thomas Collier

23

30. Records which reflect State Farm’s financial condition

24

Plaintiffs reserve the right to introduce any exhibits identified by Defendant and/or any

25

exhibits for impeachment purposes.

26

Defendants’ Exhibits

27

1.

28

Notice of Taking Deposition of Sharon Endsley with Request for Production of

Documents
10

1

2.

Transcript of Recorded Statement of Sharon Endsley, taken 7/28/14

2

3.

Inventory List prepared by Sharon Endsley (#SF-266-364)

3

4.

Inventory List Prepared by Sharon Endsley w/ Color Photos of Naff Home Taken Post-

4

Fire (Provided By Defense Counsel; #SF-267-525)

5

5.

Color Photos (19) of Naff Home Taken Post-Fire

6

6.

Diagram of Floor Plan of Naff Home (#SF-2885)

7

7.

Amended Notice of Taking Depositions of Tom Collier, Michael Avery and Jill Petrarca

8

With Request for Production of Documents

9

8.

State Farm Fire Claim File/File History Information Notes (#SF-23-109)

10

9.

Inventory List Comparison Spreadsheet prepared by Tom Collier; compares first Naff

11

Inventory w/ second Naff Inventory (#SF-2898-2931)

12

10.

Notice of Taking Deposition of the PMK of State Farm

13

11.

Letter from Jim Smith, SF SIU, to Attorney Jean Daly, dated 9/9/13, re request for

14
15
16
17
18

meeting to discuss concerns re Naffs’ fire claim (#SF-866-867)
12.

Personal Property Inventory Customer Worksheet prepared by Halonda Naff, dated

5/29/13 (#SF-3231-3286)
13.

Personal Property Inventory Customer Worksheet prepared by Halonda Naff, dated

8/13/13 (#SF-3044-3079)

19

14.

Color Photos (16) of Naff Home Taken Post-Fire

20

15.

Letter from Jill Petrarca, SF SUI, to Halonda Naff, dated 12/5/14, re denial of fire loss

21
22

claim and notice of voiding Naffs’ HO policy as of the 12/26/12 date of loss (#SF-943-946)
16.

Email String between Tom Collier and Jim Smith, dated April 2013, re National

23

Insurance Crime Bureau Hotline Referral/Tip from anonymous caller re allegation that Halonda Naff

24

intentionally burned her house down (SF#3288-3292)

25
26

17.

Inventory List Comparison Spreadsheet prepared by Tom Collier; compares Sharon

Endsley’s inventory w/ Naffs’ inventories (#SF-1027-1172)

27

18.

Transcript of Recorded Statement of Halonda Naff, taken 6/21/13

28

19.

Transcript of Recorded Statement of Jarvis Naff, taken 6/25/13
11

1

20.

Transcript of Recorded Statement of Sharon Endsley, taken 7/28/14

2

21.

Transcript of Recorded Statement of Halonda Naff, taken 1/29/13

3

22.

Transcript of Recorded Statement of Jarvis Naff, taken 2/11/13

4

23.

CA Department of Insurance Suspected Fraudulent Claim Referral Form re Naff Fire

5
6
7

Claim submitted online by Tom Collier (#SF-3018-3019)
24.

Status Letter from Tom Collier to Halonda Naff, dated 8/27/13, re notice that Mr.

Collier is in receipt and reviewing Naff personal property loss inventory (#SF-874)

8

25.

Claim File Notes, dated April 2014 (#SF-54)

9

26.

Claim File Notes, dated April 2014 (#SF-53)

10

27.

State Farm’s “Our Commitment to Our Policyholders” statement regarding claim

11

handling and State Farm’s Operations Guide, Claim Practices Fire, Documentation of Property Loss,

12

dated 4/2/08

13

28.

Claim File Notes, dated June 2014 (#SF-43)

14

29.

Claim File Notes, dated May 2014 (#SF-50)

15

30.

Letter from CA Department of Insurance to Tom Collier, dated 10/15/13, re receipt of

16

suspected fraudulent claim and notice that Fraud Division will not be assigning investigator at this time

17

(#SF-836)

18

31.

19
20

Letter from Michael Bynum, SF SIU, to Jeffrey Sroufe of CA Department of Insurance,

dated 12/12/14, re notice that Naffs’ fire claim was denied and their policy was voided (#SF-942)
32.

Facebook Posts by Bosschicc Williams re allegations that Halonda Naff had her little

21

brother and dad killed for insurance money; blew up the daycare across the street and her house on

22

Donna; blew up 2 of Williams’ cars and 2 of her cars (#SF-2798-2803)

23

33.

Bakersfield Fire Department Incident Report No. 2012-1229632 (#SF-3441-3447)

24

34.

Stemler Fire Investigations Report, dated 1/11/13 (#SF-3422-3440)

25

35.

Portion of the Naffs’ Underwriting File (#SF-3459-3508)

26

36.

Contents Inventory Summary Spreadsheet (SF#3509-3550)

27

37.

Pages 1 and 2 of the Personal Property Inventory Customer Worksheet prepared by

28

Halonda Naff, dated 5/29/13 (#SF-3551-3552)
12

1

38.

Color Photos (14) of Naff Home Taken Post-Fire

2

39.

Diagram of Floor Plan of Naff House w/ Markings; originally labeled Exhibit 6 (#SF-

40.

Diagram of Floor Plan of Naff House w/ Markings; originally labeled Exhibits 6 and 39

3
4
5

2885)

(#SF-2885)

6

41.

Color Photos (5) of Naff Home Taken Post-Fire (SF#504-508)

7

42.

Structural Damage Claim w/ Patio Cover Estimate and Diagrams of Naff House

8

(SF#2877-2887)

9

43.

Claim Committee Report – First Party (SF#959-974)

10

44.

Request for Assistance/Complaint prepared and submitted by Halonda Naff to the CA

11
12

Department of Insurance, Claims Service Bureau (#SF-2128-2130)
45.

Letter from Jeffrey Sroufe of CA Department of Insurance to Marie Lehmann,

13

Complaint Coordinator for State Farm, dated 9/30/14, re receipt of Request for Assistance/Complaint

14

and request that State Farm re-evaluate claim (#SF-2126-2127)

15

46.

Letter from Jill Petrarca to Halonda Naff, dated 10/15/14, re acknowledgement of

16

complaint filed with the CA Department of Insurance and notice of ongoing investigation; once

17

investigation is complete, State Farm will advise Naffs of coverage determination (#SF-2114)

18

47.

19

(#SF-2123-2125)

20

48.

21

California Complaint Fact Sheet; required to complete if formal complaint is made

Email String between Plaintiff’s Counsel and Defense Counsel, dated October 2015, re

deposition schedule re Naffs and David Coston and meet and confer re repeat questions at depositions

22

49.

Notice of Deposition of Halonda Naff with Production of Documents

23

50.

Transcript of Examination Under Oath of Halonda Naff, taken 3/18/14

24

51.

Plaintiffs’ Objections to Notice of Deposition of Halonda Naff with Production of

25

Documents

26

52.

27

Court Docket of 1999 Chapter 7 Bankruptcy filed by Jarvis Naff in U.S. Bankruptcy

Court, Eastern District of CA (Fresno), Case No. 99-14349

28
13

1
2

53.

2010 Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Petition/Documents filed by Naffs in U.S. Bankruptcy

Court, Eastern District of CA (Fresno), Case No. 10-18614

3

54.

Transcript of Recorded Statement of Jarvis Naff, taken on 2/11/13

4

55.

Transcript of Recorded Statement of Jarvis Naff, taken on 6/25/13

5

56.

Transcript of Examination Under Oath of Jarvis Naff, taken on 3/18/14

6

57.

Jarvis Naffs’ Responses to State Farm’s Special Interrogatories, Set One

7

58.

Re-Notice of Taking Deposition of Jim Stemler with Request for Production of

8

Documents

9

59.

Resume of James Stemler

10

60.

Fire Investigation Records/File of James Stemler

11

61.

Civil Subpoena for Fire Investigation Records/File of James Stemler (prepared/served

12

by Appleby & Co.)

13

62.

Color Photos (9) of Naff Home Taken Post-Fire

14

63.

Photocopy of CD Produced by James Stemler that contains his report and all photos he

16

64.

Color Photos (125) printed from CD produced by James Stemler

17

65.

Photo Log (w/ 16 Color Photos) attached to James Stemler’s Report

18

66.

Investigation Notes of James Stemler

19

67.

Color Photos (20) tabbed by James Stemler that depict areas of the Naff home he sifted

20

through post-fire

21

68.

Color Photo (1) w/ markings

22

69.

Re-Notice of Taking the Deposition of David Coston

23

70.

Letter from Plaintiff’s Counsel to David Coston, dated 1/6/16, re confirmation of

15

24
25
26
27

took

1/26/16 deposition (sent via email)
71.

Construction Bid and Contract between Images Builders and Plaintiffs, dated January

2013; total estimate is $124,160.75
72.

“Naff Contract” Manila Envelope, which contains various receipts and invoices

28
14

1
2

73.

“Naff 1 of 2” Manila Envelope, which contains various receipts, invoices, correction

notices, blueprints, building permits

3

74.

“Naff 2 of 2” Manila Envelope, which contains various receipts and invoices

4

75.

Blueprints (OVERSIZED EXHIBIT)

5

76.

Amended Re-Notice of Taking the Deposition of Jim Smith With Request for

6
7
8
9
10

Production of Documents
77.

Color Photos (21) [Part of Exhibit 64: Color Photos (125) printed from CD produced by

James Stemler]
78.

Email from Michael Avery to Tom Collier, dated 3/27/13, with attached content report

of Image Builders (prepared by Sharon Endsley)

11

79.

List of Subpoenas Issued by State Farm in subject action

12

80.

State Farm Renewal Certificate/Declaration Page

13

81.

Amended Re-Notice of Taking the Deposition of Jean M. Daly with Request for

14

Production of Documents

15

82.

R&M Naff Production 0001-0973

16

83.

R&M Naff Production 0974-1962

17

84.

R&M Naff Production 1963-3027

18

85.

Bottomline Legal eXchange Invoices from State Farm’s Internal Billing System

19

86.

Opinion Letter, dated 11/4/14, from Jean Daly to Tom Collier and Addendum to

20
21
22
23

Opinion Letter (SF-0980 - SF-1026)
87.

Addendum to Opinion Letter (R&M Naff Production 1180-1184) 88.

Various

Letters to Halonda Naff and Curtis Floyd from Jean Daly
89.

State Farm’s “Our Commitment to Our Policyholders” statement regarding claim

24

handling and State Farm’s Operations Guide, Claim Practices Fire, Documentation of Property Loss,

25

dated 4/2/0890.

26

handling

27

91.

State Farm’s “Our Commitment to Our Policyholders” statement regarding claim

Subpoena to Curtis Floyd to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action

28
15

1

92.

Documents from Jean Daly’s File (consists of correspondence to/from Curtis Floyd)

2

93.

Plaintiff’s Disclosure of Expert Witnesses

3

94.

State Farm Homeowners Insurance Policy No. 87-BX-Q354-4 issued to Halonda Naff

4

David F. Peterson

(Vol. I – 04/08/16)

(effective 5/1/12 to 5/1/13)

5

In addition, State Farm identifies the following:

6

1.

The complete claim file for Claim no. 55-232H-498 (SF 1-3458)

7

2.

State Farm’s complete underwriting file for Policy 87-X-Q354-4

8

3.

All photographs of the Naffs’ home

9

4.

The complete Bakersfield Fire Department file, including photographs, pertaining to the

10

December 26, 2012 fire.

11

5.

The complete records obtained from AAA Mini Storage

12

6.

The complete records obtained from David Coston dba Image Builders

13

7.

The complete records obtained from Emanuel V. Dozier, M.D

14

8.

The complete records obtained from Kern Medical Center

15

9.

The complete records from Curran Middle School/Bakersfield City School District

16

10.

The complete records obtained from Kern High School District

17

11.

The complete records obtained from CA Department of Social Services

18

12.

The complete records obtained from Owens Valley Career Development Center

19

13.

The complete records obtained from Scott’s Youth Facility

20

14.

The complete records pertaining to other claims made by the Naffs to State Farm

21

15.

The complete records obtained from JP Morgan Chase Bank

22

16.

The complete records obtained from Kern Federal Credit Union

23

17.

The complete records obtained from Kay Jewelers, a division of Sterling Jewelers, Inc.

24

18.

The complete records obtained from PCL Industrial Services, Inc.

25

19.

The complete records obtained from Bakersfield Police Department

26

20.

Public records from Kern County Superior Court pertaining to actions involving the

21.

The complete records obtained from Farmers Insurance Company

27
28

Naffs.

16

1

22.

Deposition transcript of Halonda Naff, Vols. I, II, and III

2

23.

Deposition transcript of Jarvis Naff, Vols. I and II

3

24.

Deposition transcript of Sharon Endsley

4

25.

Deposition transcript of Thomas Collier

5

26.

Deposition transcript of Michael Avery

6

27.

Deposition transcript of Jill Petrarca

7

28.

Deposition transcript of James Stemler

8

29.

Deposition transcript of Jeremy King

9

30.

Deposition transcript of Jarvis Naff, Jr.

10

31.

Deposition transcript of Jalasia Naff

11

32.

Deposition transcript of James Smith

12

33.

Deposition transcript of David Coston

13

34.

Deposition transcript of Jean Daly

14

35.

Deposition transcript of Michael Bynum

15

36.

Deposition transcript of Curtis Floyd

16

37.

Deposition transcript of David Peterson

17

38.

Plaintiffs’ Disclosure of Expert Witnesses

18

39.

The complete Robie & Matthai file

19

On or before July 15, 2015, counsel SHALL meet and confer to discuss any disputes related to

20
21

the above listed exhibits and to pre-mark and examining each other’s exhibits.
1.

At the exhibit conference, counsel will determine whether there are objections to the

22

admission of each of the exhibits and will prepare separate indexes; one listing joint exhibits, one

23

listing Plaintiff’s exhibits and one listing Defendant’s exhibits. In advance of the conference, counsel

24

must have a complete set of their proposed exhibits in order to be able to fully discuss whether

25

evidentiary objections exist. Thus, any exhibit not previously provided in discovery SHALL be

26

provided at least five court days in advance of the exhibit conference.

27
28

2.

At the conference, counsel shall identify any duplicate exhibits, i.e., any document

which both sides desire to introduce into evidence. These exhibits SHALL be marked as a joint exhibit
17

1
2

and numbered as directed above. Joint exhibits SHALL be admitted into without further foundation.
All Joint exhibits will be pre-marked with numbers preceded by the designation “JT” (e.g. JT/1,

3

JT/2, etc.). Plaintiff’s exhibits will be pre-marked with numbers beginning with 1 by the designation

4

PX (e.g. PX1, PX2, etc.). Defendant’s exhibits will be pre-marked with numbers beginning with 501

5

preceded by the designation DX (e.g. DX501, DX502, etc.). The Parties SHALL number each page of

6

any exhibit exceeding one page in length (e.g. PX1-1, PX1-2, PX1-3, etc.).

7
8
9

If originals of exhibits are unavailable, the parties may substitute legible copies. If any
document is offered which is not fully legible, the Court may exclude it from evidence.
Each joint exhibit binder shall contain an index which is placed in the binder before the

10

exhibits. The index shall consist of a column for the exhibit number, one for a description of the

11

exhibit and one column entitled “Admitted in Evidence” (as shown in the example below).

12

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

13
14
15

ADMITTED
EXHIBIT#
3.

DESCRIPTION

IN EVIDENCE

As to any exhibit which is not a joint exhibit but to which there is no objection to its

16

introduction, the exhibit will likewise be appropriately marked, i.e., as PX1, or as DX501 and will be

17

indexed as such on the index of the offering party. Such exhibits will be admitted upon introduction

18

and motion of the party, without further foundation.

19

4.

Each exhibit binder shall contain an index which is placed in the binder before the

20

exhibits. Each index shall consist of the exhibit number, the description of the exhibit and the three

21

columns as shown in the example below.

22

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

23
24
25

ADMITTED
EXHIBIT#

DESCRIPTION

OBJECTION

OTHER

IN EVIDENCE

FOUNDATION

OBJECTION

26
27
28

5.

On the index, as to exhibits to which the only objection is a lack of foundation, counsel

will place a mark under the column heading entitled “Admissible but for Foundation.”
18

1

6.

On the index, as to exhibits to which there are objections to admissibility that are not

2

based solely on a lack of foundation, counsel will place a mark under the column heading entitled

3

“Other Objections.”

4

After the exhibit conference, Plaintiff and counsel for the defendants SHALL develop four

5

complete, legible sets of exhibits. The parties SHALL deliver three sets of their exhibit binders to the

6

Courtroom Clerk and provide one set to their opponent, no later than 4:00 p.m., on August 5, 2016.

7

Counsel SHALL determine which of them will also provide three sets of the joint exhibits to the

8

Courtroom Clerk.

9

7.

10

///

11

M.

The Parties SHALL number each page of any exhibit exceeding one page in length.

12

DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS
The following is a list of discovery documents – portions of depositions, answers to

13

interrogatories, and responses to requests for admissions – that the parties expect to offer at trial.

14

NO DISCOVERY DOCUMENT, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY BE

15

ADMITTED UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER

16

SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local

17

Rule 281(b)(12).

18

Plaintiff’s Discovery

19

1.

State Farm’s Initial Rule 26 Disclosure

20

2.

State Farm’s Response to Request for Production of Documents

21

3.

State Farm’s Responses to Special Interrogatories

22

Defendants’ Discovery

23

1.

Plaintiffs’ Initial and Amended Rule 26 Disclosures

24

2.

Plaintiffs’ Responses to Request for Production of Documents

25

3.

Plaintiffs’ Responses to Special Interrogatories (Including Further Responses)

4.

Plaintiffs’ Responses to Request for Admissions

26
27
28

In the event the parties wish to admit any portion of a discovery document, the specific
discovery request, e.g., interrogatory, request for admission, must be redacted so that any extraneous
19

1

request/response is omitted.

2

N.

3
4

FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS
No further discovery is sought by either party.

O.

5

MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Any party may file motions in limine. The purpose of a motion in limine is to establish in

6

advance of the trial that certain evidence should not be offered at trial. “Although the Federal Rules of

7

Evidence do not explicitly authorize in limine rulings, the practice has developed pursuant to the

8

district court’s inherent authority to manage the course of trials.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38,

9

40 n. 2 (1984); Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family Services, 115 F. 3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997).

10

The Court will grant a motion in limine, and thereby bar use of the evidence in question, only if the

11

moving party establishes that the evidence clearly is not admissible for any valid purpose. Id.

12

In advance of filing any motion in limine, counsel SHALL meet and confer to determine

13

whether they can resolve any disputes and avoid filing motions in limine. Along with their

14

motions in limine, the parties SHALL file a certification demonstrating counsel have in good

15

faith met and conferred and attempted to resolve the dispute. Failure to provide the

16

certification may result in the Court refusing to entertain the motion.

17

Any motions in limine must be filed with the Court by July 15, 2016. The motion must clearly

18

identify the nature of the evidence that the moving party seeks to prohibit the other side from offering

19

at trial. Any opposition to the motion must be served on the other party, and filed with the Court by

20

July 22, 2016. The Court sets a hearing on the motions in limine on August 1, 2016, at 8:30 a.m.

21

Appearances via Courtcall are authorized.

22
23

The parties are reminded they may still object to the introduction of evidence during trial.
P.

24
25

None.
Q.

26
27
28

STIPULATIONS

AMENDMENTS/ DISMISSALS
None.

R.

SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
None.
20

1

S.

2
3

AGREED STATEMENT
None

T.

SEPARATE TRIAL OF ISSUES

4

Defendant requests the issue of punitive damages and attorney’s fees be bifurcated from the

5

liability portion of the trial. In particular, the defendant is concerned that it will be prejudiced if the

6

plaintiffs’ counsel testify as to the value of the services rendered.

7

The Court concludes that bifurcation would serve the interests of justice unless the plaintiff

8

intends to prove up the attorneys’ fees via a stipulation or other method that does not involve trial

9

counsel testifying. However, in the even the second phase is necessary counsel should be prepared

10

that it will start immediately.

11

U.

12
13

None requested.
V.

ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Depending upon the outcome of the case, the plaintiffs will seek an award of attorney’s fees.

14
15

APPOINTMENT OF IMPARTIAL EXPERTS

W.

16

TRIAL DATE/ ESTIMATED LENGTH OF TRIAL
Jury trial is set for August 9, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. before the Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston at

17

the United States Courthouse, 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, California. Trial is expected to last 7 to 15

18

days.

19

X.

TRIAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSIONS

20

1.

21

The parties are relieved of their obligation under Local Rule 285 to file trial briefs. If any party

22

wishes to file a trial brief, they must do so in accordance with Local Rule 285 and be filed on or before

23

July 22, 2016.

Trial Briefs

24

2.

25

The parties are required to file their proposed voir dire questions, in accordance with Local

26

Jury Voir Dire

Rule 162.1, on or before July 22, 2016.

27

3. Jury Instructions & Verdict Form

28

The parties shall serve, via e-mail or fax, their proposed jury instructions in accordance with
21

1

Local Rule 163 and their proposed verdict form on one another no later than July 15, 2016. The

2

parties shall conduct a conference to address their proposed jury instructions and verdict form no later

3

than July 22, 2016. At the conference, the parties SHALL attempt to reach agreement on jury

4

instructions and verdict form for use at trial. The parties shall file all agreed-upon jury instructions and

5

verdict form no later than July 29, 2016, and identify such as the agreed-upon jury instructions and

6

verdict forms. At the same time, the parties SHALL lodge via e-mail a copy of the joint jury

7

instructions and joint verdict form (in Word format) to [e-mail].

8

If and only if, the parties after genuine, reasonable and good faith effort cannot agree upon

9

certain specific jury instructions and verdict form, the parties shall file their respective proposed

10

(disputed) jury instructions and proposed (disputed) verdict form no later than July 29, 2016, and

11

identify such as the disputed jury instructions and verdict forms. At the same time, the parties

12

SHALL lodge via e-mail, a copy of his/their own (disputed) jury instructions and proposed (disputed)

13

verdict form (in Word format) to [e-mail].

14

In selecting proposed instructions, the parties shall use Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury

15

Instructions or California’s CACI instructions to the extent possible. All jury instructions and verdict

16

forms shall indicate the party submitting the instruction or verdict form (i.e., joint, plaintiff’s,

17

defendant’s, etc.), the number of the proposed instruction in sequence, a brief title for the instruction

18

describing the subject matter, the complete text of the instruction, and the legal authority supporting

19

the instruction. Each instruction SHALL be numbered.

20

4.

21

The parties SHALL file a joint non-argumentative, brief statement of the case which is

22

suitable for reading to the jury at the outset of jury selection on or before July 22, 2016. In the event

23

they cannot agree on a joint statement, each side SHALL file a non-argumentative, brief statement of

24

the case on or before July 22, 2016.

Statement of the Case

25

5.

26

The defendant seeks to use a juror questionnaire, though the plaintiffs object. Counsel will

Juror Questionnaire

27

meet and confer to determine whether they can come to agreement as to whether a questionnaire will

28

be used and, if so, how the questions should read. No later than July 8, 2016, counsel for the
22

1

defendant SHALL e-mail the draft questionnaire to counsel for the plaintiffs. Counsel for the

2

defendant SHALL file the proposed questionnaire no later than July 15, 2016. In the event the

3

plaintiffs continue to disagree about using a questionnaire or disagree about the wording of the

4

questions, they SHALL file their written objections no later than July 15, 2016.

5

Y.

OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL ORDER

6

Any party may, within 10 days after the date of service of this order, file and serve written

7

objections to any of the provisions set forth in this order. Such objections shall clearly specify the

8

requested modifications, corrections, additions or deletions.

9

Z.

MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS

10
11
12

None.
AA.

COMPLIANCE
Strict compliance with this order and its requirements is mandatory. All parties and their

13

counsel are subject to sanctions, including dismissal or entry of default, for failure to fully comply

14

with this order and its requirements.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 1, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
23