Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01904/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01904-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

MICHAEL C. BAUERLEIN, surviving

natural father of BROOKE LYNNE

BAUERLEIN, deceased minor,

individually and on behalf of all wrongful

death beneficiaries, including SHANNON

BAUERLEIN, surviving mother of

BROOKE LYNNE BAUERLEIN,

deceased minor; and PATRICIA JOELEE

BAUERLEIN, through MICHAEL C.

BAUERLEIN, her natural parent and next

friend,

Plaintiff, 

v.

EQUITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES

MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, an

Illinois Corporation d/b/a LA

MARIPOSA; LOTUS & WINDOWARE,

INC., a California Corporation; JUMBO

SURPLUS CORPORATION, a Taiwanese

Corporation; JOHN and JANE DOES I-X;

and BLACK and WHITE

CORPORATIONS/ PARTNERSHIPS IX,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-1904-PHX-SMM

ORDER

 This case arises out of the death of Brooke Bauerlein (“Brooke”), who died of

strangulation on May 15, 2003, when her neck was caught in a loop formed by multiple

mini-blind pull cords joined together in a single tassel. The blind was manufactured by

Defendant Jumbo Surplus Corporation (“Jumbo”) and distributed by Defendant Lotus &

Windoware, Inc. (“Lotus”). Defendant Equity Residential Properties Management

Corporation (“Equity”) owned the apartment complex in which the Bauerleins were

Case 2:04-cv-01904-SMM Document 309 Filed 01/14/09 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

residing at the time of Brooke’s death, as well as the apartment blinds. In September

2004, Plaintiff Michael Bauerlein (“Michael”) brought a wrongful death action on behalf

of himself, Brooke’s two-year-old sister Patricia Joelle Bauerlein (“Joelle”), and the

statutory beneficiaries, including Brooke’s mother, Shannon Bauerlein (“Shannon”). In

October 2007, Lotus was dismissed from the case pursuant to a stipulation (Doc. 271). 

Later, in August 2008, Equity was similarly dismissed, leaving only Jumbo to defend the

action (Doc. 297). 

The Clerk of Court entered default against Jumbo on May 9, 2008 (Doc. 287). 

Plaintiffs subsequently filed for default judgment which the Court granted on June 6,

2008 (Doc. 290). A hearing was scheduled to determine the amount of damages

sustained by Plaintiffs as a result of Jumbo’s actions. Prior to the hearing, Plaintiffs

submitted an Application for Damages (Doc. 293) as well as a Supplementation of

Damages in Support of Default Judgment (Doc. 304). At the hearing, the Court requested

further briefing regarding damage awards in other Arizona wrongful death cases, and a

Memorandum was submitted by Plaintiffs on December 19, 2008 (Doc. 308). After

considering the briefing submitted and Plaintiffs’ counsel’s representations at the hearing,

the Court finds as follows.

I. Issuance of Default Judgment

Early on in the litigation, Jumbo availed itself of this Court through making several

appearances through counsel and filing a handful of pleadings. In particular, Jumbo filed

an Answer to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and a Cross Claim against Lotus on

December 8, 2006 (Doc. 160); a Corporate Disclosure Statement also on December 8

(Doc. 161); an Amended Corporate Disclosure Statement on December 15, 2006 (Doc.

164); an Amended Answer on December 20, 2006 (Doc. 165); and a Motion to

Amend/Correct Motion for Leave to Amend on March 27, 2007 (Doc. 190). However, on

May 7, 2007, the Court granted the withdrawal of Eric L. Samore, Thomas J. Lyman, III,

and Molly A. Arranz from representing Jumbo (Doc. 200). The next day, Jumbo’s last

remaining counsel of record, James J. Osborne, also withdrew from the case (Doc. 202). 

Case 2:04-cv-01904-SMM Document 309 Filed 01/14/09 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

In granting the withdrawal of James Osborne, the Court ordered that “Defendant

Jumbo shall have thirty (30) days from the entry of this Order to file a Notice of

Appearance of its new counsel with the Court. Failure to secure counsel will result in the

Court striking Jumbo’s answer and the entry of default against Jumbo.” (Doc. 202) 

Counsel failed to file a Notice of Appearance on behalf of Jumbo within the required

thirty-day time period. Because Jumbo is a corporation, under Licht v. America West

Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994), Jumbo was not permitted to appear in this

matter unless represented by counsel. 

By having appeared before the Court and filed motions, Jumbo availed itself of the

Court and participated in this action. These actions demonstrate Jumbo was properly

served in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Once its counsel withdrew

in May of 2007, Jumbo chose not to retain new counsel or further defend against this

action. Consequently, the Clerk of Court entered default against Jumbo pursuant to Rule

55(a) (Doc. 287), and default judgment was later granted by the Court in an Order dated

June 6, 2008 (Doc. 290). 

II. Damages Determination

In Plaintiffs’ Application for Damages, filed after the grant of default judgment by

the Court, Plaintiffs sought $3,000,000 in damages, exclusive of any set offs and/or

credits against Jumbo, to compensate Plaintiffs for emotional, funeral, death, and

business-related damages associated with Brooke’s death (Doc. 293 ¶2). Plaintiffs’

support for their damages claim is detailed below.

A. Pain and Suffering

In Michael’s Affidavit accompanying the Application for Damages, he states that

Brooke’s death had caused him to suffer “nightmares, headaches, nausea, depression,

sadness and has otherwise affected every aspect of [his] life.” (Doc. 293, Aff. ¶22) In

addition, Michael claims he “became depressed and was unable to work effectively on my

business.” (Id. ¶23) The depression, nightmares, and nausea continue to the present day. 

(Id.¶¶ 24-25) Likewise, Shannon’s Affidavit states that she was treated for depression,

Case 2:04-cv-01904-SMM Document 309 Filed 01/14/09 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

post-traumatic stress disorder and panic disorders following Brooke’s death (Doc 296,

Aff. ¶16). Additionally, she claims she suffers from nightmares and sleeplessness and

sometimes is “virtually housebound with grief.” (Id.¶19) 

B. Loss of Consortium

Michael and Shannon also claim to have suffered a “loss of companionship,

comfort, support, love, and affection from Brooke Lynne Bauerlein.” (Doc. 293, Aff. ¶32;

Doc. 296, Aff. ¶20) Furthermore, Michael states that Brooke was a “very caring and

nurturing young girl and was the type of person whom [they] had hoped, realistically,

would take care of me in my old age.” (Doc. 293, Aff. ¶33)

C. Medical, Funeral, and Burial Expenses 

Michael claims $11,927.29 in medical and funeral bills in his Affidavit

accompanying the Application of Damages (Doc. 293,Aff. ¶31). The medical expenses

includes the cost of counseling for Michael following Brooke’s death. 

D. Lost Business Profits

In the Damage Supplement submitted by Plaintiffs, it states that at the time of

Brooke’s death, Michael ran his own business called Michael’s Magic (Doc. 304 ¶5). 

Following Brooke’s death on May 15, 2003, Michael was forced to close the business

(Id.) Plaintiffs allege that in the two years between the closing of Michael’s Magic and

the opening of another business, Michael lost approximately $60,000 in wages which they

attribute to the death of Brooke (Id.¶6). 

After considering the Affidavits and briefing provided by Plaintiffs, the Court

finds a total award of $1,250,000 to be appropriate to compensate Plaintiffs for their

emotional distress, funeral and medical expenses, and lost wages. This award will be

split equally between Michael and Shannon Bauerlein. 

III. Punitive Damages

In their Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff had also requested punitive

damages (Doc. 47). However, the Court finds a punitive damage award is not warranted

in this case. Punitive damages serve dual purposes, to punish the wrongdoer and to deter

Case 2:04-cv-01904-SMM Document 309 Filed 01/14/09 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

similar conduct by others in the future. Under Arizona law, evidence of “gross

negligence” or “reckless disregard of the circumstances” is not sufficient for punitive

damages. Volz v. Coleman Co., 155 Ariz. 567, 570 (1987). Rather, the punitive damage

standard requires “something more” than gross negligence. Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151

Ariz. 149, 161 (1986). In Volz, the Supreme Court of Arizona articulated the meaning

behind this “something more” language. The Court explained, “The ‘something more’ is

the evil mind, which is satisfied by evidence that ‘defendant’s wrongful conduct was

motivated by spite, actual malice, or intent to defraud’ or defendant’s ‘conscious and

deliberate disregard of the interest and rights of others.’” 155 Ariz. at 570 (quoting Gurule

v. Ill. Mut. Life and Casualty Co., 152 Ariz. 600, 602 (1987)). Punitive damages are not

warranted unless “defendant acted with a knowing or culpable state of mind, or

defendant’s conduct was so egregious that an evil mind can be inferred.” Gurule, 152

Ariz. at 601. In the absence of other evidence of an evil mind, an award of punitive

damages is not justified simply because a manufacturer continues to market a product. 

Volz, 155 Ariz. at 570. 

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint generally pleads its punitive/exemplary

damages claim, stating, 

At all material times, Defendants acted with an evil mind when they

manufactured, constructed, designed, installed, prepared, assembled, tested,

advertised, promised, rented, labeled and supplied said Apartment with

window blinds in question and their component parts with reckless

indifference to the consequences and other disregard for the safety of the

decedent and Plaintiff.

(Doc. 47). However, there is little indication from the pleadings or facts of the case that

Jumbo’s conduct was motivated by spite, malice, or an intent to defraud or was caused by

a conscious and deliberate disregard of other’s rights. The Court does not find evidence

of the “something more” that is needed for punitive damages, and thus, no punitive

damages will be awarded to Plaintiffs. 

Case 2:04-cv-01904-SMM Document 309 Filed 01/14/09 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

IV. Motion to Strike

Following the Court’s granting of Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment against

Jumbo, a Statement of Responsibility was received by the Court from Jumbo (Doc. 302). 

Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Strike this Statement of Responsibility (Doc. 305). After

consideration of the arguments, the Court will grant this Motion. The Statement of

Responsibility was filed ex parte by Jumbo. As a corporation, Jumbo can only be

represented by counsel, and thus, any attempt by Jumbo to file documents without legal

counsel is not permitted. Licht v. America West Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir.

1994). 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs are awarded $1,250,000 in damages,

to be split equally between Michael and Shannon Bauerlein. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Doc.

302 (Doc. 305).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED STRIKING Statement of Responsibility (Doc.

302).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

DATED this 12th day of January, 2009.

Case 2:04-cv-01904-SMM Document 309 Filed 01/14/09 Page 6 of 6