Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr, Case: 20STCV37056, Date: 2025-04-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV37056    Hearing Date: April 21, 2025    Dept: 205

PROCEEDINGS:                          REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY:                   Catherine Logerot, Estate of Steven Tate, and Steven Tate,  individually by his successor in interest Catherine Logerot

RESPONDING PARTY:      13000 Victory Boulevard LLC dba Windsor Gardens Healthcare Center of the Valley, S&F Management LLC, and Windsor Healthcare Management, Inc.

BACKGROUND

This is an elder abuse and wrongful death case.  Defendant 13000 Victory Boulevard LLC is a licensed 24-hour nursing facility (the “Facility”).  (Compl. ¶9.)  Defendant Windsor Healthcare Management, LLC (“WHM”) is a managing member of the Facility.  (Id. ¶4.)  Defendant S&F Management Company, LLC (“S&F”) is the Facility’s owner, operator, parent company and/or management company.  (Id. ¶10.) 

Steven A. Tate was admitted into the Facility after a back surgery.  He died while at the Facility.  Plaintiff Catherine A. Logerot is Tate’s surviving daughter and brings this action as his successor in interest.  (Id. ¶16.)     

Plaintiffs allege the Facility placed Tate on a dangerous pain medication regimen; failed to watch, monitor or care for him; failed to assess and accurately report in the medical record his declining physical and mental status, and failed to keep his family and others informed as to his declining state.  (Id. ¶48.)   

Plaintiffs further allege these acts were not isolated failures but rather part of Defendants’ calculated business practices of (1) understaffing, (2) relentless marketing and sales practices to increase resident and patient numbers, (3) using unqualified and untrained employees, and (4) recruiting heavier care residents for whom the nursing home received higher reimbursements but for whom Defendants could not properly care given the understaffing and poor training.  (Compl. ¶79.) 

On September 29, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging claims for (1) elder abuse, (2) negligence, (3) negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention, (4) violation of resident’s rights, (5) medical malpractice, (6) wrongful death, and (7) survivorship action.   

Plaintiffs served Defendants by personal service on March 18, 2021.  On April 18, 2021, each of the Defendants filed an answer.  On March 18, 2022, Plaintiffs served on each Defendant a statement of damages.  In the statement, Plaintiffs sought general damages of $2,500,000, special damages of $2,000,000 and punitive damages of $3,000,000, for a total of $7,500,000.

On April 10, 2023, the attorneys for each Defendant filed a motion to be relieved as counsel, which this Court granted on May 4, 2024.

On June 13, 2023, this Court held a trial setting conference.  Plaintiffs appeared.  None of the Defendants appeared.  The Court set an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) for hearing on September 13, 2023, as to why sanctions, including the striking of Defendants’ answers should not be imposed for Defendants’ failure to appear at the Trial Setting Conference on June 13, 2023.

On July 31, 2023, Plaintiffs filed three motions to deem admitted requests for admissions, one as to each Defendant.  There was no opposition to the motions.  On August 29, 2023, the Court granted each of the motions to deem admitted.

At the September 13, 2023 OSC hearing, Defendants again failed to appear.  This Court imposed sanctions on Defendants for failure to appear on June 13, 2023 and September 13, 2023, by striking their answers. 

On January 10, 2024, this Court entered a default in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants.  On the same date, Plaintiffs submitted requests for Court Judgment against each Defendant.    

RELIEF REQUESTED

Default judgment against Defendants for a total of $5,500,530, which is comprised of: (1) $3,000,000 in special damages, (2) $2,500,000 in general damages, and (3) $530, for costs.

ANALYSIS

Code Civ. Proc. § 585 sets forth the two options for obtaining a default judgment. First, where the plaintiff’s complaint seeks compensatory damages only, in a sum certain which is readily ascertainable from the allegations of the complaint or statement of damages, the clerk may enter the default judgment for that amount. However, if the relief requested in the complaint is more complicated, consisting of either nonmonetary relief, or monetary relief in amounts which require either an accounting, additional evidence, or the exercise of judgment to ascertain, the plaintiff must request entry of judgment by the court. In such cases, the plaintiff must affirmatively establish his entitlement to the specific judgment requested.  (Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 287.)  Section 585 also allows for interest, costs and attorney fees, where otherwise allowed by law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 585(a).)

Multiple specific documents are required, such as: (1) form CIV 100, (2) a brief summary of the case; (3) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (4) interest computations as necessary; (5) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (6) a proposed form of judgment; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under Code Civ. Proc. § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties.  (CRC Rule 3.1800.)

Here, Plaintiffs properly served Defendants more than 30 days prior to requesting entry of default and default judgment, correctly completed JC Form CIV-100 in a manner that would not void or put at issue the entry of default, provided a declaration of non-military status, requested damages in amounts supported by the filings and not in excess of the amount stated in the Statement of Damages, requested dismissal of doe defendants and filed a proposed judgment (JUD-100). 

Moreover, Plaintiffs have submitted the declaration of a medical expert who supports Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendants’ actions were below the standard of care, showed a conscious disregard, and were more likely than not the proximate cause of and contributed to Mr. Tate’s death.  But the declaration does not show clear and convincing evidence of malice, oppression or fraud, entitling Plaintiffs to punitive damages pursuant to Civ. Code § 3294.    Moreover, with respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.  (Civ. Code § 3294.)  The declaration of Plaintiffs’ medical expert does not identify any particular employee by name, much less an officer, director or managing agent of Defendant.  Accordingly, the Court declines to award punitive damages.

As to the other (general) damages, they appear related solely to Plaintiffs’ emotional distress and pain and suffering.  It is not clear whether these damages are Mr. Tate’s, Ms. Logerot’s, or both.  To the extent they are Ms. Logerot’s, there is insufficient detail in her declaration to support damages of $2,500,000.  To the extent they are Mr. Tate’s, it is not clear from the declaration of Plaintiffs’ medical expert whether he had any pain and suffering or emotional distress damages. 

Plaintiffs have also submitted a national vital statistics report which shows Mr. Tate could have lived an additional 15.3 years, and that based on the CPA journal, the mean salary for a tax accountant with Mr. Tate’s qualifications is $99,625, which would amount to $1,524,262.50 in lost earnings.  In their statement of damages, Plaintiffs quantify the present value of these lost earnings at $1,000,000.  Accordingly, the Court will award default judgment in the amount of $1 million.      

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Request for Default Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as to Defendants.  Judgment in the amount of $1,000,000 is awarded in favor of Plaintiffs.