Samantha B. v. Aurora Vista Del Mar, LLC CA2/6

California Court of Appeal Sep 3, 2025 No. B340955Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of plaintiffs' motions for attorney fees and post-judgment interest, holding that the stipulated judgment was a new judgment rather than a modification of the original, and that plaintiffs failed to establish entitlement to fees under the relevant statutes or the terms of the stipulation.

Issues

Whether plaintiffs are entitled to attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 685.040 or the terms of the stipulated judgment.
Whether collateral estoppel entitles plaintiffs to attorney fees under Civil Code section 51.9 or Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.
Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding Valencia's liability.
Whether post-judgment interest on the stipulated judgment accrues from the date of the original judgment or the date of the stipulated judgment.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A new trial results in a new judgment, not a modification of the original judgment.”

“The jury did not make the finding required by Civil Code section 51.9, subdivision (a)(1) as to Valencia.”

“The issue of Valencia’s liability under Civil Code section 51.9 was not actually litigated in the former proceeding, nor necessarily decided in the former proceeding.”

Filed 9/3/25 Samantha B. v. Aurora Vista Del Mar, LLC CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

SAMANTHA B. et al., 2d Civ. No. B340955 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2015- Plaintiffs and Appellants, 00464635-CU-PO-VTA) (Ventura County) v.

AURORA VISTA DEL MAR, LLC et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiffs obtained a substantial judgment against three defendants. We reversed and remanded for a new trial on the issue of whether two of the defendants are vicariously liable for the portion of the judgment attributed to the third defendant. In all other respects, we affirmed. The parties stipulated to a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, leaving the question of attorney fees and interest to the trial court.

Plaintiffs now appeal the denial of their motion for attorney fees and post-judgment interest dating back to the original judgment. We affirm. FACTS Trial Aurora Vista Del Mar, LLC (Aurora) is a licensed acute psychiatric hospital. Signature Health Care Services, LLC (Signature) owns Aurora and has a management agreement to provide Aurora with daily operations direction, management, and clinical responsibility for all services. In July 2011, Aurora hired Juan Valencia as a mental health worker. During Valencia’s employment, Samantha B. and Danielle W. (Plaintiffs) were patients at Aurora. After Plaintiffs were discharged, they filed an action against Valencia, Aurora, and Signature. A jury found Valencia liable for sexual assault, and Aurora and Signature liable under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15600 et seq.) The jury awarded $6.75 million in noneconomic damages. It allocated 30 percent fault to Signature, 35 percent fault to Aurora, and 35 percent fault to Valencia. Plaintiffs moved for attorney fees against Aurora and Signature pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657 (attorney fees and costs in dependent adult abuse actions). The trial court awarded Plaintiffs $2.1 million in fees. Plaintiffs did not seek attorney fees from Valencia. First Appeal Aurora and Signature appealed. Plaintiffs appealed the judgment of nonsuit on Plaintiffs’ claims of vicarious liability against Aurora and Signature. We reversed and remanded for a

Samantha B. v. Aurora Vista Del Mar, LLC CA2/6

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

YEGAN, J.

BALTODANO, J.

AI Brief