Estate of Jotena Carter v. Cambridge Sierra Holdings, LLC
24-3071
| 9th Cir. | Aug 1, 2025Background
- Jotena Carter allegedly contracted COVID-19 while in a nursing home operated by Cambridge Sierra Holdings (CSH) at the start of the pandemic.
- Her estate and children (the Carters) brought state law claims against CSH, alleging negligence and other harms arising from her death.
- CSH removed the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for CSH, finding insufficient evidence from the Carters on breach or causation.
- The Carters also sought additional discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), which was denied due to their lack of diligence during the discovery period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligence (breach & causation) | CSH breached a duty of care, causing Ms. Carter's death | Carters have no evidence showing precisely how infection occurred | No triable issue; summary judgment for CSH |
| Application of Res Ipsa Loquitur | Circumstantial evidence of negligence suffices | COVID-19 transmission not inherently negligent | Doctrine does not apply; no inference of negligence |
| Additional time for discovery (FRCP 56(d)) | More time needed for discovery on facts | Carters failed to diligently pursue discovery | No abuse of discretion in denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Peredia v. HR Mobile Servs., Inc., 25 Cal. App. 5th 680 (Cal. App. 2018) (elements and burdens in California negligence claims)
- Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., Inc., 210 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2000) (summary judgment standards)
- Brown v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 843 P.2d 624 (Cal. 1993) (application of res ipsa loquitur in California negligence cases)
- Mackey v. Pioneer Nat'l Bank, 867 F.2d 520 (9th Cir. 1989) (diligence required for Rule 56(d) discovery motions)