Saksena et al v. Farmer's Group Property and Casualty Insurance Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
YUN SAKSENA and GORDAN
SAKSENA,1
Plaintiffs,
v.
FARMER’S GROUP PROPERTY AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
8:25CV406
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 20)
by the magistrate judge2 recommending the Court grant defendant Farmer’s Group
Property and Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Farmer’s Group”) “2 nd Motion to Strike”
(Filing No. 11) paragraph 45 of plaintiffs Yun Saksena and Gordon Saksena’s (together,
the “Saksenas”) complaint with prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) (“The court may strike
from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter.”); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (authorizing the referral of such matters to a
magistrate judge for review). In paragraph 45, the Saksenas allege that “[t]he actions and
conduct of” their insurer, Farmer’s Group, in denying their underinsured-motorist claim
“were willful and wanton so as to entitle Plaintiff [sic] to punitive damages.”
Farmer’s Group maintains such damages “are not allowable damages in the State of
Nebraska and such allegation is immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous and should be
1 Although the caption of the Complaint (Filing No. 1) identifies this plaintiff as
“Gordan Saksena,” his counsel has advised the Court that his first name is “Gordon” as
used in the body of the pleading. 	The Court hereby grants the plaintiffs leave to amend
their pleading to correct the misnomer in the caption. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). They shall
do so by October 31, 2025.
2 The Honorable Jacqueline M. DeLuca, United States Magistrate Judge for the
District of Nebraska.
8:25-cv-00406-RFR-JMD Doc # 21 Filed: 10/23/25 Page 1 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
stricken.” See O’Brien v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 903 N.W.2d 432, 458 (Neb. 2017) (“Under
Nebraska law, ‘punitive, vindictive, or exemplary damages contravene Neb. Const.
art. VII, § 5, and thus are not allowed in this jurisdiction.’” (quoting Distinctive Printing &
Packaging Co. v. Cox, 443 N.W.2d 566, 574 (Neb. 1989))).
In resisting Farmer’s Group’s motion (Filing No. 13), the Saksenas assert motions
to strike are generally disfavored and contend Farmer’s Group is merely attempting to
delay this litigation despite suffering no prejudice from paragraph 45. They further contend
the motion is premature given what they see as the possibility of a choice-of-law question
regarding punitive damages.
After careful review, the magistrate judge found Nebraska law applies to the
Saksenas’ breach-of-contract and bad-faith claims against Farmer’s Group. Based on those
conclusions and the unavailability of punitive damages under Nebraska law, the magistrate
judge recommends the motion to strike be granted and the request for punitive damages be
stricken. Despite their earlier resistance, the Saksenas have not objected to the magistrate
judge’s findings and recommendation, and the time to object has now passed. 	See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (giving fourteen days to object); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (same).
Under § 636(b)(1), the Court must “make a de novo review of . . . specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 	Absent objection, however,
further review is unnecessary. 	See Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923, 939 (1991);
Leonard v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 553 F.3d 609, 619-20 (8th Cir. 2009) (“[T]he failure
to file objections eliminates not only the need for de novo review, but any review by the
district court.”); NECivR 72.2(f) (explaining that failing “to object to a finding of fact”
may constitute a waiver).
Because the Saksenas did not timely object to the magistrate judge’s findings and
recommendation,
IT IS ORDERED:
8:25-cv-00406-RFR-JMD Doc # 21 Filed: 10/23/25 Page 2 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>

3
1. 	The Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 20) is accepted. 	Any
objections are deemed waived.
2. 	Defendant Farmer’s Group Property and Casualty Insurance Company’s “2 nd
Motion to Strike” (Filing No. 11) is granted.
3. 	Paragraph 45 of plaintiffs Yun Saksena and Gordon Saksena’s Complaint
(Filing No. 1) is stricken and should not be included in their amended
pleading.
Dated this 23rd day of October 2025.
BY THE COURT:
Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.
Chief United States District Judge
8:25-cv-00406-RFR-JMD Doc # 21 Filed: 10/23/25 Page 3 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>