Complaint 1

Sean R.
Laird (SBN 214916) FILEO

1
The Law Firm of Sean R. Laird
2 805 16th Street Superior Court Of Califomia
Sacramento, CA 95814
3 (916)441-1636 H/20/2018
4 (916) 760-9002 By , Deputy
seanlairdlaw(^gmail .com Casu l^urnbur:
•5
Attomeys for Plaintiffs 34-2018-00244S99
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
9 CLAUDE ROGERS by and through his Case No.

10 Successor-in-interest KATHRYN L.
ROGERS; KATHRYN L. ROGERS, COMPLAINT F O R DAMAGES
11 individually; JEFFREY ROGERS ARISING O U T O F T H E ABUSE
individually; PHILLIP ROGERS individually; AND R E C K L E S S N E G L E C T O F A N
12 ELDER
RICHARD ROGERS individually.
13
1. Elder Abuse (W&I § 15600, et
14 Plaintiffs, seq.)
2. Fraud - Misrepresentation
vs. 3. Fraud - Constructive
15
4. Fraud - Concealment
16 MEADOW OAKS OF ROSEVILLE; 5. Wrongful Death
ROSEVILLE SH, LLC; CPR/AR
17
ROSEVILLE SH OWNER, LLC; DCP
18 INVESTORS ROSEVILLE SH, LLC; DCP
MANAGEMENT ROSEVILLE SH, LLC;
19 WESTMONT LIVING, INC.; TANYSHA
20 BORROMEO; ANA ROJAS; ANDREW
BADOUD and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive.
21
22 Defendants.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Complaint For Damages Arising Out Of The Abuse And Reckless Neglect Of An Elder
\ Plaintififs allege as follows:
^ PARTIES
3
4 1. Plaintiff CLAUDE ROGERS was at all times material hereto a resident of the State of
^ Califomia. At all relevant times, CLAUDE ROGERS was over the age of 65 years old and thus
g an "elder" within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 15600, et seq. and Penal
-J Code section 368. CLAUDE ROGERS suffered untold pain, suffering, injury and death as a result
g of Defendants' reckless neglect and abuse.
g 2. Plaintiff KATHRYL. ROGERS was the wife and is now the widow and Successor-in-
10 Interest to CLAUDE ROGERS. She will comply with Califomia Welfare & Institutions Code
J1 section 15657.3(d) by filing a Successor-in-interest affidavit pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
12 section 377.32 and will seek appointment as CLAUDE ROGERS' Successor-in-interest. At all
22 times relevant to this action, KATHRY L. ROGERS was and is a resident of the state of Califomia.
14 3. PlaintiffJEFFREY ROGERS is the son of CLAUDE ROGERS. At all times relevant
12 to this action, JEFFREY ROGERS was and is a resident of the state of Califomia, County of
Ig Sacramento.
17 4. Plaintiff PHILLIP ROGERS is the son of CLAUDE ROGERS. At all times relevant
1g to this action, PHILLIP ROGERS was and is a resident of the state of Califomia.
19 5. Plaintifif RICHARD ROGERS is the son of CLAUDE ROGERS. At all times
20 relevant to this action, RICHARD ROGERS was and is a resident of the state of Califomia.
21 6. At all times mentioned herein, MEADOW OAKS OF ROSEVILLE (hereinafter
22 "MEADOW OAKS") was and is a corporation qualified to do business in, and subject to the
22 jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Califomia. MEADOW OAKS was and is operated as an
24 Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE, sometimes referred to as an "assisted living
25 facility") within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 1500, et seq. At all times relevant
25 to this action, MEADOW OAKS did business at 930 Oak Ridge Road, in the County of Placer,
2'7 State of Califomia.
28
-2-
1 7. At all times mentioned herein, defendant ROSEVILLE SH, LLC was and is a
2 corporation that owned, managed, controlled, maintained, and/or operated MEADOW OAKS.
3 ROSEVILLE SH, LLC is a Delaware corporation qualified to do business in, and subject to the
4 jurisdiction of, the Superior Court of Califomia. At all times relevant to this complaint,
5 ROSEVILLE SH, LLC did business at 930 Oak Ridge Road, in the County of Placer, State of
6 Califomia and claimed an entity address at 3021 Citrus Circle, Suite 130, Walnut Creek, Califomia
7 in the County of Contra Costa.
8 8. At all times mentioned herein, defendant CPR / AR ROSEVILLE SH OWNER,

9 LLC was and is a corporation that owned, managed, controlled, maintained, and/or operated
10 MEADOW OAKS. CPR/AR ROSEVILLE SH OWNER, LLC is a Delaware corporation
11 qualified to do business in, and subject to the jurisdiction of, the Superior Court of Califomia. At
12 all times relevant to this complaint, CPR/AR ROSEVILLE SH OWNER, LLC did business at
13 930 Oak Ridge Road, in the County of Placer, State of Califomia and claimed an entity address at
14 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 220, South Washington, DC 20004.
15 9. At all times mentioned herein, defendant DCP INVESTORS ROSEVILLE SH, LLC
16 was and is a corporation that owned, managed, controlled, maintained, and/or operated MEADOW
17 OAKS. DCP INVESTORS ROSEVILLE SH, LLC is a Delaware corporation qualified to do

18 business in, and subject to the jurisdiction of, the Superior Court of Califomia. At all times
19 relevant to this complaint, DCP INVESTORS ROSEVILLE SH, LLC did business at 930 Oak
20 Ridge Road, in the County of Placer, State of Califomia and claimed an entity address at 3021
21 Citms Circle, Suite 130, Walnut Creek, Califomia in the County of Contra Costa.
22 10. At all times mentioned herein, defendant DCP MANAGEMENT ROSEVILLE SH,
23 LLC was and is a corporation that owned, managed, controlled, maintained, and/or operated
24 MEADOW OAKS. DCP MANAGEMENT ROSEVILLE SH, LLC is a Delaware corporation
25 qualified to do business in, and subject to the jurisdiction of, the Superior Court of Califomia. At
26 all times relevant to this complaint, DCP MANAGEMENT ROSEVILLE SH, LLC did business
27 at 930 Oak Ridge Road, in the County of Placer, State of Califomia and claimed an entity address
28 at 3021 Citms Circle, Suite 130, Walnut Creek, Califomia in the County of Contra Costa.
-3-
1 11. At all times mentioned herein, defendant WESTMONT LIVING, INC. was and is a
2 corporation that owned, managed, controlled, maintained, and/or operated MEADOW OAKS.
3 WESTMONT LIVING, INC. is a Califomia corporation qualified to do business in, and subject
4 to the jurisdiction of, the Superior Court of Califomia. At all times relevant to this complaint,
5 WESTMONT LIVING, INC. did business at 930 Oak Ridge Road, in the County of Placer, State
6 of Califomia and claimed an entity address at 7660 Fay Avenue, Suite N, La Jolla, CA.
7 12. At all times mentioned herein, defendant TANYSHA BORROMEO owned,
8 managed, controlled, maintained, and/or operated MEADOW OAKS. TANYSHA BORROMEO
9 is a resident of the County of Sacramento, State of Califomia.
10 13. At all times mentioned herein, defendant ANA ROJAS ovmed, managed, controlled,
11 maintained, and/or operated MEADOW OAKS. ANA ROJAS is a a resident of the County of
12 Sacramento, State of Califomia.
13 14. At all times mentioned herein, defendant ANDREW BADOUD owned, managed,
14 controlled, maintained, and/or operated MEADOW OAKS and ROSEVILLE SH, LLC; CPR / AR
15 ROSEVILLE SH OWNER, LLC; DCP INVESTORS ROSEVILLE SH, LLC; and DCP
16 MANAGEMENT ROSEVILLE SH, LLC. Based on information and belief, ANDREW
17 BADOUD is a a resident of the State of Califomia and resides in the Berkeley area of Alameda
18 County.
19 15. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the tme names and capacities of those Defendants named as
20 Does 1 through 50 (hereafter "Doe Defendants"), and for that reason have sued these Defendants
21 by fictitious names. Plaintififs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that each of the
22 fictitiously named Defendants is in some way liable and legally responsible for the damages and
23 injuries set forth in this complaint. Plaintififs will seek leave of the Court to amend this complaint
24 to identify these Defendants when their identities are determined. In this complaint, whenever
25 Plaintififs refer to "Defendants" they are referring to MEADOW OAKS OF ROSEVILLE;
26 ROSEVILLE SH, LLC; CPR / AR ROSEVILLE SH OWNER, LLC; DCP INVESTORS

27 ROSEVILLE SH, LLC; DCP MANAGEMENT ROSEVILLE SH, LLC; WESTMONT
28
•4-
Complaint For Damages Arisiiig Out Of The Abuse And Reckless Neglect Of An Elder
1 LIVING, INC.; TANYSHA BORROMEO; A N A ROJAS; ANDREW BADOUD and the Doe
2 Defendants as if they had identified each of them individually.
3 16. In doing the things alleged in this complaint. Defendants, and each of them, acted as
4 the agents, servants, employees, alter-egos, co-conspirators, aiders, abettors, and joint-ventures of
5 their Co-Defendants. Defendants, and each of them, acted within the course and scope of their
6 agency and employment, and acted with the knowledge, consent and approval of their Co-
7 Defendants. Their conduct was approved and ratified by their Co-Defendants.
8 17. Plaintififs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that at all times
9 mentioned herein that ROSEVILLE SH, LLC; CPR / AR ROSEVILLE SH OWNER, LLC;
10 DCP INVESTORS ROSEVILLE SH, LLC; DCP MANAGEMENT ROSEVILLE SH, LLC.
I
11 WESTMONT LIVING, INC.; TANYSHA BORROMEO; ANA ROJAS; ANDREW
12 BADOUD, and each of them, owned, managed, controlled, maintained, operated, were employed
13 by, were agents of and did business as MEADOW OAKS OF ROSEVILLE which is a operated as
14 a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE - assisted living facility) within the meaning of
15 Health and Safety Code section 1500, et seq subject to the requirements of federal and state law.
16 18. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that the Defendants, and
17 each of them, controlled all critical aspects of the operation of MEADOW OAKS to such a degree
18 that each of the Defendants is directly liable for the below alleged wrongdoing that was perpetrated
19 upon Mr. ROGERS while at MEADOW OAKS. Specifically, Plaintiffs are informed and believe
20 and on that basis allege that the Defendants, and each of them, controlled staffing decisions at
21 MEADOW OAKS; received and controlled all revenues generated by MEADOW OAKS;
22 deliberately underfimded and understaffed the facility to the detriment of its residents; and, more
23 generally, created the overall plan to maximize profits at the expense of resident care that was the
24 underlying cause of the reckless neglect that plaintifif sufifered.
25
2g FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
27 19. All of the acts described herein constituted an ongoing practice and pattem of
28 neglect and abuse committed by Defendants.
-5-
1 20. Prior to his admission at MEADOW OAKS OF ROSEVILLE (hereinafter
2 "MEADOW OAKS") CLAUDE ROGERS had been living independently at home with the help of
3 his wife, KATHRYN ROGERS. As they both advanced in age Kathryn encountered health
4 challenges (including hospitalizations) that made providing care to Claude more difficult. Claude
5 had begun displaying mild, early signs of dementia and needed help with day to day care,
6 especially ambulation. In consultation with their children, the Rogers decided Claude's needs
7 could best be met at an assisted living facility. Claude was admitted to MEADOW OAKS for care
8 on December 30, 2017. There he was to receive individualized care by a well-trained, well-
9 supervised, well-staffed specialized 24-hour czire staff.
10 21. Given his mental status and other conditions, including his ambulation status,
11 Claude was at high risk of falling. Claude, who did not receive adequate interventions to prevent
12 himfiromfalling, and was not adequately supervised by an understaffed facility. Claude
13 experienced multiple falls at MEADOW OAKS and was often found lying on his floor after
14 unwdtnessed falls. Claude suffered multiple falls while left completely unattended in his
15 wheelchair. MEADOW OAKS seized on this as an opportunity to increase revenue from Claude's
16 residency, as his hospitalizations from his falls increased his level of care and thus the facility's
17 profit margin for Claude. MEADOW OAKS, however, was an understaffed facility and had
18 already been cited by the State of Califomia for such, unrelated to Claude, during his short stay.
19 22. Concurrently, Claude was neglected at MEADOW OAKS in a constellation of
20 patient care areas, including hygiene and inadequate monitoring of his physical, mental, and
21 psychosocial well-being. This complete neglect led to a variety of harm to Claude at MEADOW
22 OAKS where he was unkept, unmonitored, and recklessly neglected. On multiple occasions family
23 members found Claude unattended in his wheelchair on the patio where he was left for long
24 periods of time, without assistance, and would become groggy and difficult to understand. Claude
25 could not push himself in his wheelchair, and certainly could not push himself and open the door
26 either to exit or enter the facility by himself Family members, on multiple occasions, instmcted
27 the facility not to leave him outside unattended.
28
-6-
1 23. On June 30, 2018 temperatures reached 103 degrees. MEADOW OAKS staff
2 pushed Claude out onto the patio and left him there for literally hours, forgetting about him
3 altogether. Hours later when a staff member found him, he was unresponsive. Staff called 911 and
4 Claude was transported to Sutter Roseville Hospital where he was diagnosed with severe heat
5 stroke. His intemal body temperature was 103.4, he was dehydrated, and had multiple areas of
6 redness and blister bums on his skin. He responded to no stimuli except pain stimuli and was
7 unable to swallow. Sutter doctors and staff were so appalled at Claude's condition that they
8 reported his abuse to Adult Protective Services, Department of Social Services and the
9 Ombudsman. Doctors indicated to the Rogers family that Claude would not recover, and
10 recommended hospice care to ease his obvious physical and mental suffering. He died on July 14,
11 2018. His cause of death: heat stroke - prolonged exposure to sun and heat.
12
COUNT ONE
13
[Elder Abuse (Welfare And Institutions Code Section 15600, etseq.)
14 Plaintiff Claude Rogers, By And Through His Successor-in-interest, Kathryn Rogers vs. all
^^ Defendants and DOES 1-50, inclusive]
^^ 24. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations asserted in paragraphs 1 through 23

^^ above as though fiilly set forth at length below.
^^ 25. Defendants had care or custody over CLAUDE ROGERS from December 30, 2017
to June 30, 2018. Claude was bom on January 15, 1935 and was 82 years old at the time of his
death. Thus, at all relevant times, Claude was over the age of 65 years old and an "elder" and
within the class of persons protected by Welfare and Institutions Code section 15600, et seq.
26. Defendants neglected Claude within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code
section 15610.57 in numerous respects. Claude was grossly neglected with respect to fall
prevention. Upon admission, Claude was assessed for risk of falling and was detemiined by
MEADOW OAKS staff to be at "high risk." According to Defendants' own evaluation, Claude's
incontinence, mental, and ambulation status all increased his risk of falling. His mental status
would contribute to gait and balance problems, he required regular assistance with elimination, and
required the assistance with the use of his wheelchair. Later in his stay he was placed on a regime
-7-
1 of dmgs that increased his risk of falling. Thereafter, despite knowing the dangers, and being
2 acutely aware of Claude's fall risk. Defendants failed to institute adequate preventative fall
3 measures for Claude and failed to prevent him from suffering multiple, entirely avoidable falls.
4 The falls resulted in injuries, pain and suffering, and included related hospitalizations. The
5 managmg agents ofthe facility, including TANYSHA BORROMEO; ANA ROJAS; ANDREW
6 BADOUD, and had the ability to hire and fire caregiving staff and had the ability to set and change
7 policy at the facility, reviewed and approved Claude initial assessments and supposed updated
8 plans of care. According to the written assessments of which staff and its managing agents were
9 aware, Claude had impaired mental status that would lead to confiasion, disorientation, and
10 judgment deficients including a decreased awareness to dangers. That written plan required staff
11 to monitor Claude multiple tunes on a shift by shift basis for appropriate activity. Staff wholly
12 failed to do this and entirely neglected Claude's need according to this written plan of care.
13 Moreover, according to written assessments done at Claude's admission completed by staff and
14 completed or reviewed and approved by the managing agents, including TANYSHA
15 BORROMEO; ANA ROJAS; ANDREW BADOUD, Claude was, "immobile without assistance
16 from others," "required wheelchair escorts," and "need[ed] help getting started and need[ed]
17 assistance to move." His inability to ambulate put him at increased risk of falls. This plan of care
18 required staff to monitor and assist Claude with his ambulation to avoid the potential hazards of
19 falls, or worse. Staff wholly failed to do this and entirely neglected Claude's need according to
20 this written plan of care, increasing his risk of and contributing to his multiple falls. Claude
21 required assistance getting to the bathroom according to his written plan of care. Staff were to
22 promptly respond to his calls for assistance, assist with transfers and ambulation, and assist in
23 toileting. Staff wholly failed to do these things and entirely neglected Claude's need according to
24 this written plan of care. Staff did not respond to Claude'scalls for assistance, did not assist him
25 with ambulation causing him to fall and suffer injury, and was found multiple times on the floor in
26 his room or his bathroom floor in pain.
27 27. Califomia liaw and the policies and procedures instituted by and approved by the
28 managing agents, including TANYSHA BORROMEO; ANA ROJAS; ANDREW BADOUD, and
-8-
1 all Defendants, indicated that staff was supposed to complete a fall risk assessment at every change
2 in condition and to investigate each fall to prevent fiiture falls. This was never done for Claude.
3 Instead, staff falsified assessments and downplayed the falls, placing rote and repeating notes in
4 Claude's chart. In addition, staff were aware that other interventions were not working, and that
5 Claude required bed rails to prevent falls from his bed and a tag alarm that would alert staff if he
6 was trying to get up unassisted from his bed. This intervention was never instituted to keep Claude
7 safe.
8 28. TANYSHA BORROMEO; ANA ROJAS; ANDREW BADOUD and all Defendants
9 had been informed that the facility did not have enough staff in the unit caring for Claude to
10 complete baseline tasks for residents, let alone engaging in "frequent checks" and the amount of
11 care that Claude, specifically, required. MEADOW OAKS' own documentation will show that
12 staffing was woefially inadequate to provide for thefrequentchecks and the level of care which
13 Claude's plan of care required. Moreover, managing agents of MEADOW OAKS including
14 TANYSHA BORROMEO; ANA ROJAS; ANDREW BADOUD and the goveming board of each
15 Defendant been made aware of a number of incidents, including falls, complaints related to staff
16 response time and the failure of staff to adequately monitor residents that lead directiy to injury of
17 other residents in the same section of the facility as Claude. Records indicate that the facility did
18 not increase staffing in response to Claude's admission or the fact that his acuity level, or need
19 level, was high and would create additional stress on an already understaffed, overworked,
20 underpaid staff as detailed below. In fact this facility had been cited by the State of Califomia for
21 inadequate staffing based on multiple events in 2017 and 2018.
22 29. Staff assigned to Claude ignored the many written plans of care and interventions
23 that would need to be carried out to prevent him from falling, and did so knowing the harm that
24 could and would come to him. Staff simply could not provided the numbers interventions
25 described specifically for Claude because the Defendants consciously understaffed the facility in
26 order to increase profitability. Despite the fact that their own plans of care discussed the risk
27 specifically to Claude and the dangers to him and despite being acutely and specifically aware of
28 Claude's fall risk. Defendants failed to institute adequate preventative fall measures, even those
-9-
1 documented in its own written plans of care, failed to provided adequate responses to Claude's
2 calls for help, failed to involve the family to determine whether there were precipitating factors to
3 his falls, failed to increase and providefrequentchecks, failed to use mats on both sides of his bed
4 to protect him if he fell, failed to address the failure of instituting bedrails for Claude's and failed
5 to provide an altemative measures, such as a tag alarm or call light, to alert staff when Claude was
6 trying to ambulate or needed help. Moreover, Defendants failed to increase staff for Claude, failed
7 to provide a sitter for Claude and/or failed to provide one-on-one staffing for Claude when his
8 condition most indicated he was at risk of falling or requiring assistance, and failed to adequately
9 respond to Claude's calls for help. Defendants and its managing agents knew of the risk of falls,
10 knew that falls could lead to injury (documenting it in Claude's records specifically) and knew that
11 injuries from falls could lead to death and could lead to a constellation of problems that increased
12 co-morbidities and complications attaining and maintaining his highest practicable physical,
13 mental and psych-social condition. Defendants knew it was simply a matter of time before Claude
14 fell and wholly neglect to provide baseline custodial care that could have prevented him from
15 suffering an entirely avoidable falls, ignoring its own written plans of care, complaints from staff,
16 families, and residents of the problem with the lack of staff and the unresponsiveness of staff when
17 residents needed help, or were unsafe, or were ambulating when they needed assistance. Each fall
18 resulted in pain, injury and regression for Claude.
19 30. Additionally, Defendant's failed to maintain Claude at his highest practicable level
20 of physical, emotional and psychosocial functioning when they failed to ensure he was clean and
21 his personal hygiene was well maintained. Claude was disheveled, unkept, and unclean from the
22 Defendants' utter neglect of him during his residency. As discussed more fiilly above and below,
23 due to conscious decisions made by the TANYSHA BORROMEO; ANA ROJAS; ANDREW
24 BADOUD and the goveming board of each Defendant, staffing levels provided to Claude
25 specifically, were inadequate to even allow for baseline custodial level care, such as keeping
26 Claude clean and dry, bathed and shaven. Claude became incontinent during his stay at the facility
27 and was often left to sit in his own urine and feces. He was not routinely bathed and/or showered
28 as required by his written plan of care. The facility and its managing agents including the
-10-
1 TANYSHA BORROMEO; ANA ROJAS; ANDREW BADOUD and the goveming board of each
2 Defendant had been made aware of complaints before, during, and after Claude's residency from
3 staff, residents, and family members of residents and the State of Califomia that there was not
4 enough staff to provide adequate levels of care related to the hygiene of residents and basic
5 custodial care of residents. Despite this, the Defendants took no action to provide enough staff to
6 Claude specifically to provide this baseline level of care.
7 31. The Defendants neglected Claude within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions
8 Code section 15610.57 in numerous respects with regard to basic custodial care to prevent a life-
9 threatening injuries and health and safety hazards. Defendants entirely ignored their obligations to
10 perform basic assessments and custodial care with respect to Claude's well being, wheeling him
11 out into and leaving him in extreme heat for hours, causing dehydration, blistering sun bums, heat
12 stroke and his death. As mentioned above, Claude could not ambulate on his own. His chart is
13 replete with references of his inability to ambulate, his need for escorts and assistance to and from
14 activities, and the fact he, "need[ed] help getting started and need[ed] assistance to move."
15 Despite this, in an understaffed facility, staff members pushed Claude out into the heat, forgot
16 about him and left him there for literally hours. Hours later when a staff member found him, he
17 was unresponsive. Staff called 911 and Claude was transported to Sutter Roseville Hospital where
18 he was diagnosed with severe heat stroke. His intemal body temperature was 103.4, he was
19 dehydrated, and had multiple areas of redness and blister burns on his skin. He responded to no
20 stimuli except pain stimuli and was unable to swallow. Sutter doctors and staff were so appalled at
21 Claude's condition that they reported his abuse to Adult Protective Services, Department of Social
22 Services and the Ombudsman. Doctors indicated to the Rogers family that Claude would not
23 recover and recommended hospice care to ease his obvious physical and mental suffering. He died
24 on July 14, 2018. His cause of death: heat stroke - prolonged exposure to sun and heat.
25 32. Further, as set forth in the preceding paragraphs. Defendants neglected and abused
26 Claude by failing to ensure that he was free from unnecessary pain and by failing to ensure that he
27 was being maintained at his highest practicable level of physical, emotional and psychosocial
28 fimctioning. The constellation of symptoms that occurred and the resultant pain and suffering was
-11 -
1 a result of Defendants complete neglect of Claude's various needs and the Defendants' repeated
2 and sustained failure to address those needs.
3 33. Defendants'neglect of Claude was reckless, oppressive and malicious. Specifically,
4 the Defendants and individuals, including the TANYSHA BORROMEO; ANA ROJAS; ANDREW
5 BADOUD and the goveming board of each Defendant, the members of the goveming board of the
6 facility and each Defendant and those who cared for Claude knew that taking the necessary
7 precautions to prevent Claude from suffering entirely avoidable and unnecessary pain and death;
8 failing to maintain Claude at his highest practicable level of physical, emotional and psychosocial
9 fimctioning by failing to institute adequate preventative fall measures and failing to prevent Claude
10 from suffering repeated and avoidable falls resulting in injuries, hospitalization, and regression;
11 taking the necessary precautions to prevent Claude from developing dehydration, heat stroke,
12 bums; failing to ensure he was clean £ind that his personal hygiene was well maintained; all of
13 which was basic custodial neglect that caused his painful death, were each individually critical to
14 Claude's health, well-being, and prognosis. In the face of their knowledge as to how critical each
15 of the above resident care issues were to Claude's life. Defendants ignored these resident care
16 issues, and each of them, providing abysmal care that fell far below how reasonable persons in
17 their position would have performed. By failing to address Claude's many resident care issues,
18 Defendants knew that it was highly probable that their conduct would cause him harm and they
19 knowingly disregarded this risk.
20 34. At thetimeof his admission TANYSHA BORROMEO; ANA ROJAS; ANDREW
21 BADOUD and the goveming board of each Defendant, the members of the goveming board of the
22 facility and each Defendant were made aware of Claude's admission and his high acuity.
23 Moreover, the TANYSHA BORROMEO; ANA ROJAS; AND ANDREW BADOUD knew that
24 Claude's needs would lead to high profits based upon his high needs. TANYSHA BORROMEO;
25 ANA ROJAS; AND ANDREW BADOUD and Defendants knew that, based specifically on
26 Claude's needs, staffing levels would need to be increased in order to provide all the critical care
27 that he required, which MEADOW OAKS represented to Claude, his family, and the State and
28 federal govemment they were going to provide. Defendant's directors and managing agents set
-12-
1 census standards and profitability goal-standards, a corporate strategy and which created pressure
2 to accept and did cause MEADOW OAKS to specifically accept Claude, in a goal to significantly
3 increase the percentage of high acuity residents in its facilities, knowing however, they were not
4 staffed with enough caregivers to provide the level of care Claude and other high acuity residents
5 needed. Defendants and its managing agents were aware that if they admitted Claude, their overall
6 staffing needs would have to correspondingly increase. However, Defendants and its managing
7 agents made the conscious decision not to increase staff at the time Claude was admitted, or
8 anytime thereafter as his needs increased. Instead, it continued to pursue higher acuity residents,
9 knowing it already could not meet Claude's needs and knowing that Claude's needs already
10 increased, and continued to increase, along with the total acuity level of the facility. Defendants all
11 had been informed that the facility did not have enough staff in the unit caring for Claude to
12 complete baseline tasks for residents, let alone engaging infrequentchecks and assistance,
13 monitoring and amount of care that Claude, specifically, required. MEADOW OAKS and its
14 managing agents, in making the decision to admit and retain Claude, specifically, knew that they
15 did not have the staff to resident ratio required to provide the level of care Claude needed, as it
16 related to specifically to falls and neglect, hydration, care, treatment, hygiene and monitoring.
17 Defendants and its managing agents had been specifically informed of inadequate staff response
18 time and the failure of staff to adequately monitor residents that lead directly to injury of other
19 residents in the same section of the facility as Claude. This, despite knowing that if he was
20 neglected with respect to falls, hydration, care, treatment, hygiene and monitoring, it could and
21 would cause Claude's death, as he was unable to do these things on his own.
22 35. Further, Defendants' neglect of Claude was reckless, oppressive, and malicious, in
23 that their failures were not merely isolated to one area of resident care, but extended to numerous
24 resident care issues, which collective failures they clearly understood would cause Claude either
25 serious harm or death, or both.
26 36. Defendants, and each of them, are legally responsible for the widespread neglect
27 Claude suffered for numerous independent reasons. First, managing agents of Defendants, and
28 each of them, directly participated in the neglect of Claude. Personnel who Defendants, and each
-13-
1 of them, vested with discretionary decision-making authority relating to patient care issues
2 involving Claude were part of the team that utterly failed to prevent him from suffering entirely
3 avoidable falls and unnecessary pain and death; failing to address and report his dramatic changes
4 of condition, including the worsening condition related to falls; and ensuring that Claude was
5 provided with the necessary care and services to keep him clean, dry and well maintained, among
6 other things. These individuals include the Defendants, TANYSHA BORROMEO; ANA ROJAS;
7 ANDREW BADOUD and the goveming board of each Defendant. Such individuals were officers,
8 directors, and/or managing agents of Defendants and each of them. The direct participation of
9 these individuals in the abysmal care provided to Claude subjects Defendants, and each of them, to
10 liability under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (hereafter "Elder Abuse
11 Acf'). These individuals monitored the admissions of residents, including Claude, were informed
12 of his acuity level, his payment rates, required staffing needs, the total needs of the building, the
13 other falls, pressure ulcers, complaints of understaffing, citations, inventions, lack of response to
14 call lights, and other factors indicating the facility was understaffed. These individuals were
15 specifically aware that the staffing levels at the facility were not sufficient to meet the needs of
16 Claude and that providing inadequate staff would lead to his falling, being neglected as to basic
17 custodial care, inevitably leading to his death from complete neglect and abandonment.
18 37. Further, Defendants, and each of them, are legally responsible for the egregious
19 neglect Claude suffered, because their ofificers, directors and/or managing agents both directly and
20 indirectly authorized the reckless neglect that Claude suffered. Said offers, directors and/or
21 managing agents directly authorized the reckless neglect at issue by specifically knowing that
22 Claude and others were being neglected by MEADOW OAKS' personnel, allowing such neglect to
23 continue to occur, and failing to take any action to prevent the reckless neglect from fiirther
24 occurring. To be certain, after Claude's falls and notice of ongoing neglect and lack of ability to
25 assist and monitor Claude, defendant's managing agents did not increase the staff related to Claude
26 or decrease the over all acuity in the group of residents to whom Claude's caregivers were tasked
27 with providing care. Instead, even when provided notice of understaffing from staff, other
28 residents, family members and the State of Califomia, MEADOW OAKS continued to provide
-14-
1 woefully inadequate staff to Claude and others in the facility. They looked for ways to sedate
2 Claude with dmgs, they locked him and other residents in their rooms at night so they would not
3 have to deal with them and kept the facility woefully understaffed, yet highly profitable.
4 38. Further, Defendants, and each of them, are legally responsible for the reckless
5 neglect Claude suffered because their ofificers, directors and/or managing agents were responsible
6 for creating a patient care environment that inevitably led to the reckless neglect of Claude and
7 other similarly situated patients in Defendant owned facilities. Specifically, Defendant, and their
8 ofificers, directors and managing agents, purposely utilized insufificient staff, underpaid staff, and
9 insufificiently supervised staff as part of an overdl plan, design, and scheme to maximize their
10 profits at the expense of patient care, at the time that Claude was a resident, after already knowing
11 that Claude was being neglected and suffering injuries, such as falls, neglect, lack of monitoring
12 and support, etc. as a result. Moreover, their officers, directors and/or managing agents, directly
13 approved of the reckless neglect at issue by specifically not taking any adverse employment action
14 against any individual in way relating to the care that Claude received, not terminating any
15 individual as a result of the care that Claude received, and not disciplining any individual as a
16 result of the care that Claude received at MEADOW OAKS. Instead, Defendants' and its
17 managing agents, including TANYSHA BORROMEO AND ANDREW BADOUD ratified and
18 approved of the neglect that Claude suffered at the facility by specifically falsifying documentation
19 to make it appear that they had been monitoring Claude, made false statements to family members
20 about the facts and circumstances of his death, and lied directiy to family members when tuming
21 over Claude's property following his death. They chose to ratify the neglect instead of taking
22 action against those who wholly failed to provide Claude baseline custodial care and the corporate
23 policies that created the environment that killed Claude.
24 39. Defendants implemented a strategy of increasing the number of high-acuity

25 residents at MEADOW OAKS because these residents require a high level of billed services and
26 therefore generate the highest revenue, they did this specifically as to Claude, knowing his high
27 acuity would lead to high reimbursement rates. At the same time of Claude's residency, the
28 Defendants minimized labor costs by intentionally refiising to hire sufficient numbers of care
-15-
1 providers to care for those residents, monitor their conditions, and provide adequate care.
2 Furthermore, during Claude's residency, the Defendants knowingly failed to employ sufficient
3 supervisory staff to oversee and train the care giving staff and to ensure that the care they provided
4 and met all applicable standards of custodial care. This was despite having been informed of the
5 failings related specifically to Claude's care and similar injuries to others in the building at or
6 about the same time. This was an intentional strategy undertaken by the Defendants to maximize
7 profits, even though the Defendants knew the care provided to Claude and the residents at
8 MEADOW OAKS was substandard and placed both Claude and other residents at risk of serious
9 harm and/or death.
10 40. The Defendants' managing agents knew that there were insufificient numbers of
11 trained, supervised, direct caregiving staff to provide basic care to prevent neglect and abuse
12 specifically to Claude. They knew that MEADOW OAKS had so few staff that the staff could not
13 possibly conduct frequent checks of residents, and could not and did not specifically: check Claude
14 for changes of condition, provide care and interventions to prevent falls or observe signs and
15 symptoms such as problems with Claude's development and worsening condition that led to falls,
16 provide appropriate monitoring at all times, provide assistance, proper hygiene, and monitoring.
17 Managing agents for Defendants, including the TANYSHA BORROMEO; ANA ROJAS;
18 ANDREW BADOUD and the goveming board of each Defendant, as well as regional and
19 executive board members of Defendants knew that MEADOW OAKS had repeatedly received
20 resident and family complaints of poor care and regulatory deficiency notices for neglect and/or
21 substandard patient care caused by poorly trained staff and/or inadequate staffing. They knew that
22 their other facilities in their chain, including MEADOW OAKS had a far higher rate of injuries
23 and/or deaths like those suffered by Claude, and other unusual incidents at similar facilities, and
24 yet did not increase staflTing when they leamed of Claude's increased needs or his initial injuries.
25 Despite this knowledge, the Defendants knowingly failed to take any action to prevent Claude's
26 neglect and abuse, knowingly failed to hire additional staff to provide care to Claude, knowingly
27 failed to employ supervisory staff to ensure that care was delivered appropriately to Claude, and
28
-16-
1 continued to admit new high acuity residents in order to maximize profits while knowing
2 MEADOW OAKS did not have sufficient staff to care for Claude.
3 41. The Defendants knew or should have known there was a high probability that injury
4 would result from their failure to perform duties of care to and withholding care from Claude. The
5 Defendants knew that the policy of operating MEADOW OAKS with insufficient staffing, and
6 continuing to admit new residents even in the face of such inadequate staffing, would likely result
7 in resident injury and/or death, and they consciously disregarded this risk.
8 42. In breaching these duties to Claude, the Defendants acted with conscious disregard
9 of the serious harm that would result from their failure to perform these duties to Claude. The
10 Defendants were motivated by a desire to increase their profits, and thus they reduced staff,
11 supervision, care, supplies and working equipment to dangerously low levels, which they knew, or
12 should have known, would lead to Claude's injuries and death.
13 43. In choosing to maximize profits by deliberately understaffing their facilities,
14 Defendants knew that their plan posed a substantial and imminent danger to the health, safety and
15 well-being of the residents at their facility, including Claude. Indeed, Defendants, and their
16 ofificers, directors and managing agents had specifically been put on notice of the egregious
17 failures of their personnel to provide adequate patient care by, among other things, the numerous
18 deficiencies and citations imposed by the Califomia Department of Social Services, the public
19 entity statutorily entrusted with providing regulatory oversight of these facilities. Further,
20 Defendants have been subjected to civil lawsuits relating specifically to the abysmal patient care at
21 MEADOW OAKS and other defendant facilities. Managing agents had all been put on notice of
22 the understaffing causing Claude's falls and neglect, yet took no action to prevent his fiarther
23 neglect and death.
24 44. In the preceding paragraphs, and as set forth above, when Plaintiffs refer to the
25 Defendants, Plaintiffs refer to Defendants MEADOW OAKS OF ROSEVILLE; ROSEVILLE SH,
26 LLC; CPR/AR ROSEVILLE SH OWNER, LLC; DCP INVESTORS ROSEVILLE SH, LLC; DCP
27 MANAGEMENT ROSEVILLE SH, LLC; WESTMONT LIVING, INC.; TANYSHA
28 BORROMEO; ANA ROJAS; ANDREW BADOUD and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive as if they
-17-
1 had identified each of them individually. In addition to the foregoing direct liability of the
2 Defendants, Plaintiffs maintain that the Corporate Defendants (here, referring to ROSEVILLE SH,
3 LLC; CPR/AR ROSEVILLE SH OWNER, LLC; DCP INVESTORS ROSEVILLE SH, LLC; DCP
4 MANAGEMENT ROSEVILLE SH, LLC; WESTMONT LIVING, INC, and other DOE corporate
5 defendants) are also liable for the wrongdoing of MEADOW OAKS because each of these
6 "Corporate Defendants" are an alter ego of the other and of MEADOW OAKS. In that connection,
7 ROSEVILLE SH, LLC; CPR/AR ROSEVILLE SH OWNER, LLC; DCP INVESTORS
8 ROSEVILLE SH, LLC; DCP MANAGEMENT ROSEVILLE SH, LLC; WESTMONT LIVING,
9 fNC, other DOE corporate defendants, wholly ovm and operate MEADOW OAKS.
10 45. Given the alter ego status of the Defendants, as a matter of law, each of the acts
11 attributable to any of Corporate Defendants (here collectively, "corporate defendants" means
14 INC, other DOE corporate defendants) and to MEADOW OAKS also is legally attiibutable to all
15 the Defendants, and, accordingly, the allegations set forth above and below apply to each of these
16 alter ego entities individually and to all of them collectively.
17 46. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that numerous of the alter
18 ego factors identified in the seminal case of Associated Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Meet Co. are
19 present with respect to each of the Defendants. The allegations supporting the Corporate
20 Defendants (ROSEVILLE SH, LLC; CPR/AR ROSEVILLE SH OWNER, LLC; DCP
21 INVESTORS ROSEVILLE SH, LLC; DCP MANAGEMENT ROSEVILLE SH, LLC;
22 WESTMONT LIVING, INC and other DOE corporate defendants) alter ego relationship with
23 MEADOW OAKS and each other are as follows: The ofificers, shareholders, and members of the
24 board of directors of each of the Corporate Defendants and MEADOW OAKS are substantially
25 identical. The Corporate Defendants perform all accountingfimctionsfor MEADOW OAKS and
26 entirely control its finances. The agent for service of process between the Corporate Defendants
27 and MEADOW OAKS is the same. The attomeys for all these entities are the same. The corporate
28 headquarters for all these entities is the same. In addition. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that
-18-
1 MEADOW OAKS has no assets of any kind, with all profits reaped from its operations flowing to
2 its parent corporation, and/or to and through the Corporate Defendants. As alter egos, MEADOW
3 OAKS and the Corporate Defendants both operate as care custodians over the residents at
4 MEADOW OAKS and both are fiilly subject to liability based on the reckless neglect that Claude
5 suffered at MEADOW OAKS, as set forth above and below. Plaintiffs are informed and believe
6 that ROSEVILLE SH, LLC; CPR/AR ROSEVILLE SH OWNER, LLC; DCP INVESTORS
8 INC and other corporate DOE defendants entirely controls thefinancesof MEADOW OAKS.
9 Plaintiffs are fiirther informed and believe that MEADOW OAKS have intentionally been
10 undercapitalized as a way of avoiding liability for the wrongdoing of its employees. Upon
11 information and belief, MEADOW OAKS's administrator reports to individuals from
14 INC.
15 47. Given the alter ego relationship between and among, MEADOW OAKS and the
16 Corporate Defendants, as a matter of law, each of the acts attributable to MEADOW OAKS also is
17 legally attributable to the Corporate Defendants and any DOE corporate defendants, and
18 accordingly, the allegations set forth above and below apply to each of these alter ego entities
19 individually and to them collectively.
20 48. In addition. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that each of
21 the Defendants is engaged in a joint venture such that each of these defendants is legally
22 responsible for the wrongful conduct of the others and of MEADOW OAKS. Specifically,
23 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that the Defendants have combined
24 their property, skill and knowledge with each other and MEADOW OAKS with the intent of
25 carrying out a single business undertaking ~ to wit, the operation of MEADOW OAKS in a
26 manner that maximizes profit at the expense of patient care. Plaintiffs are informed and believe
27 and on that basis allege the entities have overlapping ownership, joint control over the businesses
28 assets and profits and losses of the businesses are shared and commingled. Given their joint
-19-
i Complaint For Damages Arising Out Of The Abuse And Reckless Neglect Of An Elder
1 control and operation of the enterprise, the Corporate Defendants and MEADOW OAKS are
2 engaged in a joint venture such that each of the Defendants is legally liable for the fraudulent and
3 otherwise wrongful conduct of each of the other joint-venturers including the conduct towards
4 Claude alleged in this complaint.
6 the each of the Defendants is liable for the wrongdoing as to Claude while at MEADOW OAKS
7 because each of them were co-conspirators in an egregious plan to maximize profits at the expense
8 of patient care. Specifically, each of the Defendants knowingly engaged in a plan to maximize
9 profits at the expense of patient care by, among other things, drawing in high acuity residents and
10 then severely understaffing MEADOW OAKS. The Defendants knew that such a plan was
11 substantially likely to result in significant harm to MEADOW OAKS's vulnerable patients,
12 including plaintiff Claude. The Defendants agreed with the egregious plan described above and
13 intended that it be carried out. Indeed, each of the Defendants gave substantial assistance to this
14 egregious plan by, among other things, controlling the budget that led to the execution of the plan,
15 giving financial incentives to facility persoimel to carry out the plan, and otherwise creating a
16 culture that encouraged and condoned this egregiously dangerous plan. Each of the Defendant's
17 conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to Claude.
18 50. The conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as detailed above resulted in physical
19 harm, mental harm, and, ultimately death to Claude. In addition to the physical harm and death
20 caused by Defendants'flagrantdisregard for his health and well-being, MEADOW OAKS and
21 Defendants' conduct caused Claude to suffer horrific mental pain and suffering and death.
22 51. Under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 15657(a) and (b). Defendants are
23 . liable to Plaintiffs for damages for Claude's pain and suffering, medical expenses, and attomeys'
24 fees and costs.

25 52. Further, under Civil Code section 3345, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for a
26 trebling of the damages awarded under the Elder Abuse Act because (1) Defendants knew or
27 should have known that their conduct was directed toward an elder and/or (2) Claude was
28 substantially more vulnerable to Defendants' conduct because of his infirmities and he actually
-20-
1 suffered substantial physical, emotional, or economic damages resulting from Defendants'
2 conduct.
3 53. Defendants' violations of the various provisions of the Elder Abuse Act, which
4 provisions embody a substantial public to protect the health and welfare of elderly and dependent
5 persons, was despicable and in conscious disregard of CLAUDE ROGERS'rights,health and
6 welfare.
7 54. As is discussed more fully above. Defendants acted withfraud,malice, oppression
8 and recklessness in doing so, thereby entitling Plaintiffs to punitive damages in connection with
9 Defendants' conduct.
10 Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for damages as set forth below.
11
12 COUNT TWO
[ Fraud - Misrepresentation
13 Plaintiff CLAUDE ROGERS, By and Through His Successor-in-interest, KATHRYN L .
14 ROGERS vs. all Defendants and DOES 1-50, Inclusive. ]
15 55. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations asserted in paragraphs 1 through 54
15 above as though fully set forth at length.
17 56. The Defendants, and each of them, represented to prospective patients in general^^
1g and to Plaintiffs in particular, that they were wiling and able to comply with applicable statutes and
19 regulations goveming their operation.
20 57. The Defendants, and each of them, represented to prospective patients in general,
21 and Plaintiffs in particular, that they offered superior services to person who required their specific
22 care and services.
23 58. The Defendants, and each of them, represented to prospective patients in general,
24 and Plaintiffs in particular, that they offered superior services to person who required their specific
25 care and services.

26 59. Defendants, and each of them, represented to Plaintiffs, that the facility had a fiill-
27 time, well-staffed, well-trained, well-supervised care staff that would provide the superior services
28 they offered.
-21-
1 60. Defendants, and each of them, represented to Plaintiffs that MEADOW OAKS
2 provided 24 hour-a-day care services that complied with Califomia law, under a planned program
3 of policies and procedures which was developed with the advices of, and was periodically
4 reviewed and executed by, a professional group of at caregivers.
5 61. The Defendants, and each of them, represented to prospective patients at large,
6 and Plaintiffs in particular, that they would be attentive to the particular health needs of the
7 respective residents, including fall prevention, hygiene, monitions, assistance with ambulation and
8 would allocate all necessary resources so that its caregivers would be sufficiently supervised and
9 trained and would have necessary equipment and materials to meet the particular needs of each
10 resident admitted.
11 62. All representations described in the preceding paragraphs were made to Plaintiffs
12 before and upon CLAUDE ROGERS admission to MEADOW OAKS. All representations
13 described in the preceding paragraphs were made to CLAUDE ROGERS, KATHRYN L.
14 ROGERS, JEFFREY ROGERS and; RICHARD ROGERS, in person while touring the facility
15 and/or signing admission agreements. The representations described in the preceding paragraphs
16 were made to Plaintiffs by multiple people at MEADOW OAKS, including Defendants vested with
17 discretionary decision making authority.
18 63. All representations described in the preceding paragraphs were false and were
19 known by Defendants to be false when made. Specifically, Defendants, and each of them, never
20 intended to comply with the applicable statutes and regulations. Defendants never intended to
21 offer superior services. Defendants never intended to allocate the necessary resources to meet the
22 individualized needs of their patients. Defendants never met state regulated staffing requirements.
23 Rather, Defendants were only interested in securing residents and then using their best efforts to
24 maximize profits by reducing resident care expenditures in order to enhance Defendants' profit
25 margin and the corresponding bonuses that defendants received therefrom.
26 64. The persons making these statements were managing agents of Defendants,
27 because they were given broad discretion in whether to accept new residents into Defendants'
28 facility, and thus were authorized to speak on all Defendants' behalf Furthermore, higher-level
-22-
1 managing agents of Defendants authorized persons affiliated with the admission of CLAUDE
2 ROGERS to make the laudatory representations set forth above in order to further Defendants'
3 goal of maximizing profits and their bonuses at the expense of patient care.
4 65. Contrary to their representations. Defendants had insufificient numbers of staff,
5 insufficient supervision of staff, insufficient training of staff, and insufificiently qualified staff,
6 among other things, to protect CLAUDE ROGERS from suffering avoidable falls, suffering
7 needless pain, among other things. In addition, the Defendants charged Plaintiffs, and others
8 paying for services provided to CLAUDE ROGERS, for services they did not provide to CLAUDE
9 ROGERS, and services that CLAUDE ROGERS did not receive. Defendants collected money for
10 these services and did not reimburse the party or parties who paid for these services.
11 66. Defendants knew their representations, as set forth above, were false.
12 67. The representations were made by Defendants for the purpose of inducing
13 CLAUDE ROGERS and CLAUDE ROGERS family into securing him as a patient, so that the
14 Defendants could eam fees paid by him or on his behalf for CLAUDE ROGERS' care, all the
15 while knowing that the programs in place were inadequate and the staffing in place would
16 jeopardize the health, safety and physical and mental well-being of CLAUDE ROGERS.
17 68. CLAUDE ROGERS and his family reasonably relied up Defendants' false
18 representations and believed they were tme and accordingly, he entered into the care of the
19 Defendants as a patient. Thereafter, CLAUDE ROGERS remained in the care of the Defendants as
20 a result of the ongoing false representations regarding the above referenced subjects.
21 69. As a result of the false and misleading representations made by Defendants, and
22 each of them, and upon which CLAUDE ROGERS and his family reasonably relied, CLAUDE
23 ROGERS was unwittingly placed into a situation that the Defendants knew or should have known
24 posed a substantial risk of physical and emotional injury and distress and death such as that which
25 was actually suffered by CLAUDE ROGERS. CLAUDE ROGERS suffered physical and
26 emotional injuries and death and incurred expenses as a result of thefraudulentconduct ofthe
27 Defendants, as alleged in the foregoing paragraphs.
28
-23-
1 70. By virtue of the foregoing and as is set forth more fully in other portions of this
2 complaint. Defendants, and each of them, acted with recklessness, malice, oppression and fraud,
3 thereby entitling Plaintiffs to punitive damages in cormection with this cause of action.
4 71. At thetimeof the facts set forth in this cause of action, the "Corporate
5 Defendants" (ROSEVILLE SH, LLC; CPR/AR ROSEVILLE SH OWNER, LLC; DCP
6 INVESTORS ROSEVILLE SH, LLC; DCP MANAGEMENT ROSEVILLE SH, LLC;
7 WESTMONT LIVING, INC and other corporate DOE defendants owned,) operated, and
8 controlled MEADOW OAKS and the other facilities within its chain. The Corporate Defendants
9 controlled all critical aspects of the operation of MEADOW OAKS to such a degree that it is
10 directly liable for the wrongdoing that MEADOW OAKS perpetrated upon CLAUDE ROGERS,
11 including thefraudallegations set forth in this cause of action. Specifically, The Corporate
12 Defendants controlled staffing decisions at MEADOW OAKS; received and controlled all
13 revenues generated by MEADOW OAKS and deliberately underfimded the facility to the
14 detriment of its residents; and, more generally, created the overall plan to maximize profits at the
15 expense of patient care.
16 72. In addition to the foregoing direct liability of the Corporate Defendants, Plaintiffs
17 maintain that the Corporate Defendants are liable for the wrongdoing of MEADOW OAKS
18 because MEADOW OAKS is an alter ego of the Corporate Defendants. In that cormection, the
19 Corporate Defendants are a service organization that performs all services for all "Westmont
20 Living" facilities, including MEADOW OAKS. Westmont Living, Inc. owns all Westmont
21 facilities operating in Califomia and Oregon, including MEADOW OAKS.
22 73. The allegations supporting the Corporate Defendants' alter ego relationship with
23 MEADOW OAKS are as the same as listed and described in paragraph 47, above, and are
24 incorporated in total herein.
25 74. Given the alter ego relationship between and among the Corporate Defendants
26 and MEADOW OAKS, as a matter of law, each of the acts attributable to MEADOW OAKS also
27 is legally attributable to the Corporate Defendants.
28
24-
1 75. In addition, the Corporate Defendants and MEADOW OAKS are engaged in a
2 joint venture such that each of these entities is legally responsible for the wrongful conduct of the
3 other. Specifically, the Corporate Defendants and MEADOW OAKS have combined their
4 property, skill and knowledge with the intent of carrying out a single business undertaking - to wit,
5 the operation of an assisted living facility in a marmer that maximizes profit at the expense of
6 patient care. The entities have overlapping ownership. Joint control over the businesses exists as
7 detailed in the foregoing paragraphs. The profits and losses of the business are shared and
8 commingled. Given the joint control and operation of the the Corporate Defendants and
9 MEADOW OAKS, they constituted a joint venture such that the Corporate Defendants are legally
10 liable for thefraudulentand otherwise wrongful conduct of MEADOW OAKS and vise versa.
12 the each of the Defendants is liable for the wrongdoing as to CLAUDE while at MEADOW OAKS
13 because each of them were co-conspirators in an egregious plan to make these misrepresentations
14 and maximize profits at the expense of patient care. Specifically, each of the Defendants
15 knowingly engaged in a plan to maximize profits at the expense of patient care by, among other
16 things, drawing in high acuity residents and then severely understaffing MEADOW OAKS. The
17 Defendants knew that such a plan was substantially likely to result in significant harm to
18 MEADOW OAKS's vulnerable patients, including plaintiff CLAUDE. The Defendants agreed
19 with the egregious plan described above and intended that it be carried out. Indeed, each of the
20 Defendants gave substantial assistance to this egregious plan by, among other things, controlling
21 the budget that led to the execution of the plan, givingfinancialincentives to facility personnel to
22 carry out the plan, and otherwise creating a culture that encouraged and condoned this egregiously
23 dangerous plan. Each of the Defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to
24 CLAUDE ROGERS.
25 Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for damages as set forth below

COUNT THREE
26
[Fraud - Constructive
27 Plaintiff CLAUDE ROGERS, By and Through His Successor-in-interest, KATHRYN L.
28 ROGERS vs. all Defendants and DOES 1-50, inclusive.]
-25-
2 above as though fully set forth at length below.
3 78. When CLAUDE ROGERS entered Defendants' care, he became dependent upon
4 Defendants for his care. Plaintiffs tmsted Defendants to faithfully fulfill and observe their duties to
5 provide him with proper care and monitoring.
6 79. Defendants accepted CLAUDE ROGERS as a patient, accepted his tmst and
7 confidence, and accepted the fiduciary relationship which was then and there created.
8 80. By virtue ofthe relationship between CLAUDE ROGERS and Defendants, a
9 fiduciary duty existed relating to the care, comfort, safety, and health of CLAUDE ROGERS and
10 the disposition and use of money paid on behalf of CLAUDE ROGERS for his proper care and
11 treatment. Pursuant to their duty, Defendants owed the utmost good faith and faimess to CLAUDE
12 ROGERS in all matters pertaining to his health, care and comfort and relating to use of the money
13 paid on his behalf for his proper care and treatment. CLAUDE ROGERS relied on this fiduciary
14 relationship, and defendants accepted his reliance.

15 81. Defendants breached the aforesaid duty, as alleged, and in so doing gained an
16 advantage over CLAUDE ROGERS in matters relating to his care, comfort, safety, and health. In
17 particular, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in breaching its duty as alleged,
18 Defendants billed and received money from or on behalf of CLAUDE ROGERS that was not used
19 for his care and treatment, thus allowing defendants to reduce patient-care related expenses and
20 increase profit, all at CLAUDE ROGERS' expense.
21 82. During the course and scope of the Defendants' care of CLAUDE ROGERS,
22 Defendants and each of them became aware that they could not, or could no longer, adequately
23 provide the care CLAUDE ROGERS required and that CLAUDE ROGERS' continued health and
24 safety would be compromised. Nevertheless, Defendants did not make this information available
25 to CLAUDE ROGERS, despite their clear duty to do so. Had the Defendants so apprised
26 CLAUDE ROGERS, CLAUDE ROGERS would have been moved from the Defendants' care, and
27 Defendants had reason to believe such was the case. As a result of their intentional failure to
28
26-
1 disclose this cmcial information. Defendants were able to retain CLAUDE ROGERS as a patient
2 and to continue to collect monies for his care.
3 83. As a direct and proximate result of the acts alleged above. Plaintiffs sustained
4 pecuniary damages for medical expenses in an amoimt according to proof at trial.
5 84. As a further direct and proximate result of the acts alleged above, CLAUDE
6 ROGERS sustained physical and emotional injuries and death, the damages of which will be
7 established according to proof at trial.

8 85. Defendants, and each of them, realized a profit from the practice offraudas
9 alleged, and accordingly. Defendants are required to disgorge their profits made from their
10 operations with respect to CLAUDE ROGERS and Plaintiffs are entitied to an award in the
11 amount of these profits, restitution, and interest on all such sums from the date of injury.
12 86. At the time of the facts set forth in this cause of action, the Corporate Defendants
13 owned, operated, and controlled MEADOW OAKS and the other facilities within its chain, the
14 Corporate Defendants controlled all critical aspects of the operation of MEADOW OAKS to such
15 a degree that it is directly liable for the wrongdoing that MEADOW OAKS perpetrated upon
16 CLAUDE ROGERS, including thefraudallegations set forth in this cause of action. Specifically,
17 the Corporate Defendants controlled stafifing decisions at MEADOW OAKS; received and
18 controlled all revenues generated by MEADOW OAKS and deliberately underfunded the facility
19 to the detriment of its residents; and, more generally, created the overall plan to maximize profits
20 at the expense of patient care.
21 87. In addition to the foregoing direct liability of the Corporate Defendants, Plaintiffs
22 maintain that the Corporate Defendants are liable for the wrongdoing of MEADOW OAKS
23 because MEADOW OAKS is an alter ego of the Corporate Defendants. In that connection, the
24 Corporate Defendants are a service organization that performs all services for all "Westmont
27
28
27-
I 88. The allegations supporting the Corporate Defendants' alter ego relationship with
5 and MEADOW OAKS, as a matter of law, each ofthe acts attributable to MEADOW OAKS also
6 is legally attributable to each Corporate Defendant.
8 joint venture such that each of these entities is legally responsible for the wrongful conduct of the
11 the operation of an assisted living facility in a maimer that maximizes profit at the expense of
15 MEADOW OAKS, they constituted a joint venture such that Each Corporate Defendant is legally
18 the each of the Defendants is liable for the wrongdoing as to CLAUDE while at MEADOW OAKS
19 because each of them were co-conspirators in an egregious plan to maximize profits at the expense
20 of patient care. Specifically, each of the Defendants knowingly engaged in a plan to maximize
21 profits at the expense of patient care by, among other things, drawing in high acuity residents and
22 then severely understaffing MEADOW OAKS. The Defendants knew that such a plan was
23 substantially likely to result in significant harm to MEADOW OAKS's vulnerable patients,
24 including plaintiff CLAUDE. The Defendants agreed with the egregious plan described above and
25 intended that it be carried out. Indeed, each ofthe Defendants gave substantial assistance to this
26 egregious plan by, among other things, controlling the budget that led to the execution of the plan,
27 giving financial incentives to facility personnel to carry out the plan, and otherwdse creating a
28
-28-
1 culture that encouraged and condoned this egregiously dangerous plan. Each of the Defendant's
2 conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to CLAUDE.

3 92. In doing the things alleged above. Defendants, and each of them, acted with
4 malice, oppression, and fraud.
5 Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for damages as set forth below.
COUNT FOUR
[Fraud - Concealment
Plaintiff CLAUDE ROGERS, By and Through His Successor-in-interest, KATHRYN L .
9 ROGERS vs. all Defendants and DOES 1-50, inclusive. ]
10
93. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations asserted in paragraphs 1 through 92
11
above as though fully set forth at length below.
12
94. When CLAUDE ROGERS entered Defendants' care he became dependent upon
13
Defendants for his care. Plaintiffs tmsted Defendants to faithfully fulfill and observe their duties
14
to provide him with proper residential care for the elderly. Defendants accepted CLAUDE
15
ROGERS as a patient, accepted his tmst and confidence, and accepted the fiduciary relationship
16
which was then and there created.
17
95. When CLAUDE ROGERS began being cared for by Defendants, tiie Defendants
18
assumed responsibility for his care and safety. The Defendants, and each of them, knew that,
19
according to their plan to increase profits at the expense of patients such as CLAUDE ROGERS,
20
the operation of MEADOW OAKS was not designed, administered or funded to comply with
21
statutory and regulatory responsibilities to provide adequate care.
22
96. Instead, Defendants knew, or should have know, that the Defendants' operation
23
was designed to circumvent their legal duty to comply with applicable statutes and regulations, so
24
as to maximize profitability, by diverting patient care funds instead of using them for actual patient
25
care.
26
97. That knowledge was exclusively in the possession of the Defendants and
27
Plaintiffs had no such knowledge and no opportunity to obtain tme infonnation.
28
-29-
1 98. Plaintiffs believed that the Defendants' business operations were, as represented
2 by them, properly run in compliance with law, and that the care offered to residents was the care as
3 defined in the state regulations and federal guidelines.
4 99. CLAUDE ROGERS and his family had no knowledge that, in fact. Defendants
5 had, as their routine practice, insufficient and unqualified caregivers, which resulted in physical
6 abuse and neglect of many of its patients, including CLAUDE ROGERS.
7 100. In fact. Defendants had been repeatedly cited by the Department of Social
8 Services for the abuse and neglect of its patients both before and during CLAUDE ROGERS care,
9 and they had knowledge and notice of their inability to provide care which met applicable
10 standards. Moreover, corporate managing agents had notice of its widespread inability to provide
11 adequate care in the form of monthly logs submitted to its headquarters. In fact. Defendants had
12 been cited by the Department of Social Services for their care of many other patients who
13 developed severe injuries due to the Defendants' neglect and understaffing - including, but not
14 limited to, injuries related to falls and neglect at MEADOW OAKS.
15 101. In spite of a rising volume of complaints and evidence of deficient care, the
16 Defendants continued to take on new patients, thereby increasing the likelihood that even more
17 patients would be harmed.
18 102. Based in part on their superior and exclusive knowledge conceming their
19 inability to provide legally adequate care, and their intention not to provide such care, and based
20 on their understanding that CLAUDE ROGERS and his family were not in a position to determine
21 the tme facts, but were relying upon the representations of Defendants, Defendants had a duty to
22 disclose the fact that they could not, and would not, provide adequate care to CLAUDE ROGERS,
23 and that Defendants were repeat offenders of statutes designed to protect patients from abuse and
24 neglect.
25 103. As set forth above in Plaintiffs' separate cause of action for misrepresentation,
26 Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made affirmative misrepresentations, namely that they would
27 monitor and observe CLAUDE ROGERS to prevent his from falling, assist in his hygiene, assist
28 with his ambulation, would monitor him and that they had sufficient numbers of specialized staff
-30-
1 who where properlyfrainedto adequately care for a patient dealing with related dementia care.
2 Here, under Plaintiffs' concealment cause of action. Plaintiffs allege that defendants deliberately
3 concealed from Plaintiffs the Defendants' goal of maximizing profits at the expense of patient care.
4 These omissions are separate and distinct from the affirmative misrepresentations made above.
5 104. Defendants, and each of them, breached duties to disclose these facts to
6 CLAUDE ROGERS and his family, with the intent of misleading them into believing that
7 CLAUDE ROGERS would be properiy cared for, thereby inducing CLAUDE ROGERS and his
8 family to place and keep him under their care. As discussed above in paragraphs 62-66, managing
9 agents of Defendants at both the facility and corporate level, made and/or authorized the making of
10 the laudatory representations set forth above in accordance with Defendants' goal of maximizing
11 profits at the expense of patient care. The Defendants also deliberately concealed from CLAUDE
12 ROGERS and his family the nature and extent of not only the falls and neglect, but also the many
13 instances where he was left unattended for hours, only to be found groggy and completely put of it.
14 Family witnessed the after-effects and regression from this obvious neglect.
15 105. CLAUDE ROGERS and his family relied upon the Defendants, and on the
16 express and implied assurances that they made, and believed that CLAUDE ROGERS would be
17 properly cared for according to law. Accordingly, CLAUDE ROGERS remained under the care of
18 Defendants while he and his family were ignorant of the tme facts.
19 106. As a legal result of the false and misleading representations made by the
20 Defendants and upon which CLAUDE ROGERS and his family relied. CLAUDE ROGERS was
21 unwittingly placed in a situation which the Defendants knew, or should have knovm, posed a
22 substantial risk of physical and emotional injury or distress and death, such as that actually
23 suffered by CLAUDE ROGERS.
24 107. By virtue of the foregoing. Defendants have acted with recklessness, malice,
25 fraud and oppression and an award of damages in a sum according to proof at trial is justified,
26 warranted and appropriate.

27 108. At the time of the facts set forth in this cause of action, the Corporate Defendants
28 owned, operated, and controlled MEADOW OAKS and the other facilities within its chain, the
-31-
1 Corporate Defendants controlled all critical aspects of the operation of MEADOW OAKS to such
2 a degree that it is directly liable for the wrongdoing that MEADOW OAKS perpetrated upon
3 CLAUDE ROGERS, including thefraudallegations set forth in this cause of action. Specifically,
4 the Corporate Defendants controlled staffing decisions at MEADOW OAKS; received and
5 controlled all revenues generated by MEADOW OAKS and deliberately underfunded the facility
6 to the detriment of its residents; and, miore generally, created the overall plan to maximize profits
7 at the expense of patient care.
8 109. In addition to the foregoing direct liability of the Corporate Defendants,

9 Plaintiffs maintain that The Corporate Defendants are liable for the wrongdoing of MEADOW
10 OAKS because MEADOW OAKS is an alter ego of the Corporate Defendants. In that connection,
11 the Corporate Defendants are a service organization that performs all services for all "Westmont

14 110. The allegations supporting the Corporate Defendants' alter ego relationship with
18 and MEADOW OAKS, as a matter of law, each ofthe acts attributable to MEADOW OAKS also
19 is legally attributable to Each Corporate Defendant.
21 joint venture such that each of these entities is legally responsible for the wrongful conduct ofthe
24 the operation of an assisted living facility in a manner that maximizes profit at the expense of
28
-32-
1 MEADOW OAKS, they constituted a joint venture such that Each Corporate Defendant is legally
3 113 • In addition. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that each
4 of the each of the Defendants is liable for the wrongdoing as to CLAUDE while at MEADOW
5 OAKS because each of them were co-conspirators in an egregious plan to conceal the plan to
6 maximize profits at the expense of patient care. Specifically, each of the Defendants knowingly
7 engaged in a plan to maximize profits at the expense of patient care by, among other things,
8 drawing in high acuity residents and then severely understaffing MEADOW OAKS. The
9 Defendants knew that such a plan was substantially likely to result in significant harm to
10 MEADOW OAKS's vulnerable patients, including plaintiff CLAUDE. The Defendants agreed
11 with the egregious plan described above and intended that it be carried out. Indeed, each of the
12 Defendants gave substantial assistance to this egregious plan by, among other things, controlling
13 the budget that led to the execution of the plan, giving fmancial incentives to facility personnel to
14 carry out the plan, and otherwise creating a culture that encouraged and condoned this egregiously
15 dangerous plan. Each of the Defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to
16 CLAUDE.
17 114. In doing the things alleged above. Defendants, and each of them, acted with
18 malice, oppression, and fraud.
19 Wherefore, Plaintiffs prays for damages as set forth below.

20
COUNT FIVE
21
[Wrongful Death
22 KATHRYN L . ROGERS, individually JEFFREY ROGERS individually; PHILLIP
ROGERS individually; RICHARD ROGERS individually vs. all Defendants and DOES
1-50, inclusive.]
2^ above as though set forth fully below.

26 116. As a proximate result of the reckless neglect, abuse andfraudperpefrated by
27 Defendants, CLAUDE ROGERS died oh July 14, 2018.

28
33-
1 117. Prior to the death of CLAUDE ROGERS, Plaintiffs KATHRYN L. ROGERS,
2 individually; JEFFREY ROGERS individually; PHILLIP ROGERS individually; and RICHARD

3 ROGERS individually, all enjoyed the love, society, comfort and attention of their father/husband.
4 As a proximate result of the reckless neglect, abuse and fraud perpetrated by Defendants, and each
5 of them, KATHRYN L. ROGERS, individually JEFFREY ROGERS individually; PHILLIP
6 ROGERS individually; RICHARD ROGERS individually are no longer able to enjoy the love,
7 society, comfort and attention of their father/husband.
8 118. As a proximate result of the reckless neglect, abuse, and fraud of Defendants, as
9 alleged herein, which caused the death of CLAUDE ROGERS, his wife KATHRYN L. ROGERS;
10 and children: JEFFREY ROGERS, PHILLIP ROGERS, and RICHARD ROGERS have incun-ed
11 funeral expenses in a sum according to proof at time of trial.
12 Wherefore, Plaintiffs prays for damages as set forth below.

13 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand ajury trial and pray for judgment as follows:
14 1. For general damages according to proof;

15 2. For special damages according to proof;
16 3. For attomeys' fees against Defendants, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code
17 section 15657(a);
18 4. For treble damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3345;
19 5. For pimitive damages against Defendants; and
20 6. For costs of suit against Defendants, and for such other and further relief as the
21 Court deems j ust and proper.
22
Monday, November 19, 2018 Respectfully submitted.
.23
24 The Law Firm of Sean R. Laird
25
26
27
2g Attomey for Plaintiffs
-34-
CIVIL DROP BO)i
GDSSC C; l'i \Tri 0 L' 3 c

SUPERIOR CQUiU
OF CAIJFORMIA

Complaint 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Complaint 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Sean R.

Laird (SBN 214916) FILEO

9 CLAUDE ROGERS by and through his Case No.

7 in the County of Contra Costa.

8 8. At all times mentioned herein, defendant CPR / AR ROSEVILLE SH OWNER,

17 OAKS. DCP INVESTORS ROSEVILLE SH, LLC is a Delaware corporation qualified to do

24 MEADOW OAKS. DCP MANAGEMENT ROSEVILLE SH, LLC is a Delaware corporation

26 ROSEVILLE SH, LLC; CPR / AR ROSEVILLE SH OWNER, LLC; DCP INVESTORS

24 underlying cause of the reckless neglect that plaintifif sufifered.

^^ 24. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations asserted in paragraphs 1 through 23

26 his room or his bathroom floor in pain.

24 39. Defendants implemented a strategy of increasing the number of high-acuity

24 fees and costs.

25 care and services.

27 Defendants, as alleged in the foregoing paragraphs.

25 Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for damages as set forth below

14 relationship, and defendants accepted his reliance.

2 and to continue to collect monies for his care.

4 pecuniary damages for medical expenses in an amoimt according to proof at trial.

7 established according to proof at trial.

20 at the expense of patient care.

26 facilities operating in Califomia and Oregon, including MEADOW OAKS.

3 incorporated in total herein.

23 substantially likely to result in significant harm to MEADOW OAKS's vulnerable patients,

2 conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to CLAUDE.

5 Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for damages as set forth below.

26 warranted and appropriate.

7 at the expense of patient care.

8 109. In addition to the foregoing direct liability of the Corporate Defendants,

13 facilities operating in Califomia and Oregon, including MEADOW OAKS.

19 is legally attributable to Each Corporate Defendant.

19 Wherefore, Plaintiffs prays for damages as set forth below.

2^ above as though set forth fully below.

27 Defendants, CLAUDE ROGERS died oh July 14, 2018.

2 individually; JEFFREY ROGERS individually; PHILLIP ROGERS individually; and RICHARD

12 Wherefore, Plaintiffs prays for damages as set forth below.

14 1. For general damages according to proof;

21 Court deems j ust and proper.

GDSSC C; l'i \Tri 0 L' 3 c

You might also like