STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge.

Pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the Court's Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, Plaintiff, FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE ("Plaintiff" or "Farmers"), and Defendant, TOTO USA, INC. ("Defendant") (collectively, the "Parties"), by and through their undersigned counsel, respectfully submit this Stipulated Motion and Order for Leave to File Amended Complaint.

In support of the instant Motion, the Parties state as follows:

1. Good cause exists to grant this Motion. Among other things, Plaintiff has advanced this case by naming an additional defendant in its Amended Complaint, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

2. This Motion is timely pursuant to the Court's Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, dated January 10, 2018. Per said Order, the "Parties shall have until March 22, 2018 to file any motions to amend the pleadings to add parties." (Dkt. 10).

3. The Parties have conferred regarding this Motion, and Defendant consents to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. As such, the Parties stipulate to the entry of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.

WHEREFORE, the Parties jointly request that the Court grant this Motion for leave to file Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and order that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be entered on the docket of Case No. 2:17-cv-02906-APG-PAL effective as of the date of the Court's order.

IT IS ORDERED: The Motion is granted. Plaintiff is likewise granted leave to file its Amended Complaint.

EXHIBIT "A"

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Plaintiff for its Amended Complaint against Defendants alleges as follows:

I.

JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS

1. During the period of time relevant to the matters stated herein, FARMER INSURANCE EXCHANGE (hereinafter, "Plaintiff") was a foreign insurance compan duly authorized to conduct business as an insurance company in the County of Clark, State of Nevada.

2. During the period of time relevant to the matters stated herein, Plaintiff' insured, Doug Ansell (hereinafter, "Ansell") was and is an individual who owned single-family residence (hereinafter, the "Residence") located at 3059 Red Arrow Dr., Las Vegas, NV 89135, in the County of Clark, State of Nevada.

3. Defendant TOTO USA, INC. (hereinafter "TOTO") is, and at all times relevan to the matters pleaded herein was, a Georgia corporation duly authorized to transac business in the County of Clark, State of Nevada.

4. TOTO caused and/or contributed to a water loss, as described herein, tha occurred within the County of Clark, State of Nevada, out of which this action arises.

5. Defendant CHRISTOPHER HOMES, LLC (hereinafter "CHRISTOPHE HOMES") is, and at all times relevant to the matters pleaded herein was, a Nevad corporation and a Nevada contractor duly authorized to transact business in the Count of Clark, State of Nevada.

6. CHRISTOPHER HOMES caused and/or contributed to a water loss, a described herein, that occurred within the County of Clark, State of Nevada, out 0 which this action arises.

7. Venue is property in the County of Clark, State of Nevada because this matte flows directly from a water loss at the Residence, as described herein, which is located in the County of Clark, State of Nevada.

8. The damages sustained by Plaintiff, as described herein, are $94,842.94.

II.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

9. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained Paragraphs 1 through 8 above as though fully set forth herein.

10. During the period of time relevant to the matters stated herein, Plaintiff' insured, Doug Ansell (hereinafter, "Ansell") was and is an individual who owned single-family residence (hereinafter, the "Residence") located at 3059 Red Arrow Dr., Las Vegas, NV 89135, in the County of Clark, State of Nevada.

11. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff provided insurance coverin losses to its insured Ansell, under a homeowner's policy (the "Policy").

12. Ansell purchased a faucet (the "Product") manufactured by TOTO.

13. CHRISTOPHER HOMES and/or its agents, subcontractors, representative and/or employees installed the Product and/or performed other work related to and/o affecting the Product.

14. On or about November 8, 2015, the Product failed and caused extensiv water damage at the Residence (the "Water Loss").

15. Ansell submitted a claim to Plaintiff for damages arising from the damage that took place in the Residence on or about November 8, 2015 ("Loss").

16. By reason of the foregoing Water Loss, Plaintiff became obligated to pa certain sums pursuant to the Policy in the amount of $94,842.94 for the damage to th Residence and personal property of Ansell.

17. Pursuant to the Policy, equity, and law, Plaintiff is subrogated to the rights 0 Ansell in the amount of all payments made in response to Ansell's claims for coverag under the Policy for the Loss.

18. On or around March 22, 2017, Plaintiff demanded payment from TOTO fo the damage its defective Product caused to Ansell's personal property and Residence.

19. TOTO refused to pay Plaintiff's demand, which resulted in this litigation.

20. Plaintiff has been required to retain the services of an attorney to prosecut this action and the Court should order Defendant to pay a reasonable amount 0 attorney's fees together with the costs of suit incurred herein.

21. Pursuant to NRS 17.130, Plaintiff is entitled to pre-judgment interest from th date of filing suit.

III.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligence Products Liability against TOTO)

22. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 21 above as though fully set forth herein.

23. TOTO owed a duty to Ansell and all foreseeable users of the Product, t exercise reasonable care in its design, manufacture, instructions and warnings of th Product such that the materials in the Product would not deteriorate when exposed t municipal water resulting in a water loss and/or would not deteriorate as a result 0 foreseeable installation methods and/or plumbing work.

24. TOTO breached its duty of care to Ansell when it negligently and carelessl warned, designed, instructed and manufactured the Product with material which deteriorated when exposed to municipal water and/or foreseeable installation method and/or plumbing work, and resulted in a water loss.

25. As a direct and proximate result of TOTO's breach of its duties of care, th Product was defective and failed when it leaked causing water to flow and damaging th Residence and personal property of Ansell.

IV.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Strict Products Liability against TOTO)

26. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained paragraphs 1 through 25 above as though fully set forth herein.

27. The Product was defective in its design and/or manufacturing, and warning when it left TOTO's control, making it unreasonably dangerous for the purpose for which it was intended.

28. The Product was defective because the acetyl plastic used in th manufacture of the Product deteriorated from normal levels of chlorine found in municipal water supplies and/or deteriorated as a result of foreseeable installation methods and/or plumbing work.

29. As a direct and proximate result of such defects, water leaked from th deteriorated Product causing extensive water damage to Ansell's Residence and personal property in excess of $15,000.00.

V.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Express Warranty against TOTO)

30. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 29 above as though fully set forth herein.

31. Ansell and TOTO entered into a contract for the sale of the Product.

32. Through its advertising materials, sales presentations, models, samples, affirmations of fact or promise, discussions, and/or examples TOTO expressl warranted that the Product had flawless performance, were lasting and would no catastrophically fail and damage other property.

33. The Product did not conform to the advertising materials, sales presentations, models, samples, affirmations of fact or promise, discussions, and/or examples.

34. TOTO breached said warranty when the acetyl plastic in the deteriorated which allowed water to flow from the Product into the Residence.

35. TOTO's breach was the proximate cause of the loss sustained by Ansell a water flowed directly from the leak in the Product and damaged Ansell's Residence and personal property.

VI.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability against TOTO)

36. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained Paragraphs 1 through 35 above as though fully set forth herein.

37. Ansell and TOTO entered into a contract for the sale of the Product.

38. At the time of the purchase, TOTO was in the business of selling, distributing, and/or manufacturing faucets of the same design, make and model as the Product and held itself out as having special knowledge or skill regarding such Products.

39. The Product was not of fair, average quality, or the same quality as thos generally acceptable in the trade, and was not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.

40. As a direct and proximate result of such defects, the Product leaked causin extensive water damage to the Residence and personal property of Ansell.

VII.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose against TOTO)

41. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 40 above as though fully set forth herein.

42. Ansell and TOTO entered into a contract for the sale of the Product.

43. At the time of purchase, TOTO knew or had reason to know the purpose fo which the Product was being purchased and that Ansell was relying on its skill and judgment to select or furnish a product that was suitable for the particular purposes 0 Ansell.

44. Ansell relied on TOTO's skill and/or judgment when deciding to purchase th Product.

45. The Product was defective and was not fit for the purposes of Ansell.

46. As a direct and proximate result of such defects, the Product leaked causin extensive water damage to the Residence and personal property of Ansell.

VIII.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Deceptive Trade Practice against TOTO)

47. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 46 above as though fully set forth herein.

48. TOTO represented that the Product was of a particular standard, quality 0 grade even though it knew or should have known the Product was of another standard, quality or grade.

IX.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligence against Christopher Homes)

49. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained In Paragraphs 1 through 48 above as though fully set forth herein.

50. Christopher Homes owed plaintiff's insured a duty of care to properl supervise, inspect, construct, maintain, install or otherwise perform work at th Residence related to the installation of the Product and/or the plumbing at th Residence.

51. Christopher Homes breached its duty of care by failing to properly conduc the work and/or supervise the work related to installation of the Product and/or th plumbing at the Residence.

52. Christopher Homes' negligence caused the Water Loss.

53. As a directed proximate consequence of Christopher Homes' negligence, the Water Loss caused extensive water damage to the Residence and persona property of Ansell.

X.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligent Hiring and Supervision against Christopher Homes)

54. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained Paragraphs 1 through 53 above as though fully set forth herein.

55. Christopher Homes had a duty to properly evaluate the qualifications and conduct appropriate background checks on its employees and/or agents before hirin them.

56. Christopher Homes had a duty to properly supervise, monitor, and otherwise instruct its employees and/or agents.

57. Christopher Homes failed to fulfill its duties in this regard, thereb breaching its duty to any potential plaintiff and/or third-party, specifically Christophe Homes' breached its duty of care to the Plaintiff's insured.

58. Christopher Homes' negligence caused the Water Loss.

59. As a direct proximate consequence of Christopher Homes' negligence, th Water Loss caused extensive water damage to the Residence and personal property 0 Ansell.

XI.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligence Per Se against Christopher Homes)

60. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 59 above as though fully set forth herein.

61. Christopher Homes, its employees, and/or its agents installed or caused th Product and/or plumbing and/or plumbing components at the Residence to be installed in violation of statutes, building codes and/or applicable regulations.

62. Christopher Homes was required by statute, code and/or regulation properly install the Product and/or plumbing and plumbing components at th Residence.

63. Plaintiff's insured is within the class of persons intended to be protected b the statutes, building codes and/or regulations.

64. Damage caused by the Water Loss is the type of injury that the above referenced statutes, codes and/or regulations were intended to prevent.

65. Christopher Homes and/or its agents and/or its employees failed to properl install the Product and/or plumbing and/or plumbing components at the Residence.

66. If Christopher Homes and/or its employees and/or its agents had properl installed the Product and/or plumbing and/or plumbing components at the Residence i compliance with the building codes and/or applicable statutes and/or regulations, the the Water Loss would not have occurred.

67. As a direct and proximate consequence of the Christopher Homes' failure t properly install the Product and/or plumbing and/or plumbing components at th Residence as required by the building codes and/or statutes and/or regulations ther was extensive water damage to the Residence and personal property of Ansell.

XII.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of ContractlWarranty against Christopher Homes)

68. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained Paragraphs 1 through 67 above as though fully set forth herein.

69. Christopher Homes contracted expressly and/or orally, with Plaintiff' insured to properly install the Product and/or plumbing and all associated component in a workmanlike manner and in conformance with applicable codes, statutes, regulations and industry standards.

70. Plaintiff's insured performed all conditions precedent and/or all condition precedent have occurred.

71. All contracts at issue contained the implied covenant of good faith and fai dealing pursuant to which Christopher Homes agreed to provide Plaintiff's insured with the benefit of properly functioning plumbing.

72. In addition, Christopher Homes expressly and/or impliedly warranted tha the Product and plumbing work and all associated components would be installed properly and in conformance with all applicable codes, statutes, regulations and indust standards.

73. The Product and/or other plumbing and/or plumbing components were no properly installed in that Christopher Homes' work caused the Water Loss in breach 0 contract and warranty.

74. The damage from the Water Loss was a foreseeable consequence 0 Christopher Homes' breach of contract and warranty.

75. As a direct and proximate consequence of these contract and warrant breaches, Christopher Homes caused the Water Loss and extensive water damage t the Residence and personal property of Ansell.

XIII.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Res Ipsa Loquitur against Christopher Homes)

76. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained Paragraphs 1 through 75 above as though fully set forth herein.

77. During installation of the Product and/or plumbing and/or plumbing components, the Product and/or other plumbing and plumbing components and al related parts were in the possession of and under the exclusive control of Christophe Homes and/or its employees and/or its agents.

78. Plaintiff's insured made no changes or alterations to the Product or othe plumbing or plumbing components after they were installed by Christopher Homes.

79. Water loss from plumbing does not occur in the ordinary course of events i those who have control over installation of the plumbing and its components tha caused such water loss use ordinary care when installing them.

80. The circumstances surrounding the cause of the Water Loss were such tha Plaintiff's insured may not be in a position to know the specific conduct that caused th Water Loss.

81. Plaintiff's insured did not cause the Water Loss nor caused the Produc and/or other plumbing and/or plumbing components to fail.

82. The negligence of Christopher Homes caused the Product and/or other plumbing and plumbing components to fail thereby causing the Water Loss.

83. As a direct and proximate consequence of the negligence of Christophe Homes, Christopher Homes caused the Water Loss and extensive water damage to th Residence and personal property of Ansell.

IX.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment against Defendants a follows:

1. Damages in an amount to be proved at trial;

2. Pre-judgment interest at the prevailing statutory rate;

3. Post-judgment interest at the prevailing statutory rate;

4. Attorney fees as allowed by law;

5. Costs of this action; and

6. Any additional or further relief that this Court deems necessary under the circumstances.