Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01907/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01907-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

1

Plaintiff stipulates to the dismissal of all claims except for the fraud claim. (Doc. 51

at 7). Defendant will be granted summary judgment on these claims. 

wo

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Daniela Geonkova, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Sunrise Scottsdale Senior Living, LLC, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-01907-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 40). For the

reasons discussed, the Motion will be granted in part and denied in part. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty

of loyalty, breach of the duty of care, conversion, and mail theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1708.1

The action named Sunrise Scottsdale Senior Living, LLC, d/b/a Sunrise of Scottsdale, as

Defendant. On October 1, 2009, the parties stipulated to replacing Defendant Sunrise

Scottsdale Senior Living, LLC (the “LLC”), with Defendant Sunrise Senior Living

Management, Inc. (the “Management company”). According to Defendant, the LLC owns

the property that houses the business known as Sunrise of Scottsdale, which is a senior living

Case 2:08-cv-01907-ROS Document 55 Filed 09/20/10 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 -

facility. The Management company operates the business, employs the workers, and is the

proper Defendant in this action. The LLC answered the Complaint, both on its own behalf

and on behalf of the Management company, and the Management company is thus

represented by the same counsel. Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the Court will

order the LLC replaced as Defendant by the Management company, with the caption on the

Complaint being amended to reflect the substitution. Because Defendant’s Answer and

Motion for Summary Judgment were filed on behalf of both the LLC and the Management

Company (as the proper Defendant), the substitution does not affect the Court’s resolution

of the Motion for Summary Judgment.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s claims are based on the following factual allegations. Sunrise of Scottsdale

(“Sunrise”) is an assisted living facility regulated by Title 36 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.

Plaintiff interviewed with Sunrise for a position entitled “Assisted Living Coordinator” in

November 2007. This position is responsible for scheduling caregiver activities and does not

require a license from the Arizona Department of Health Services (“ADHS”). The position

titled “Assisted Living Facility Manager,” however, does require an ADHS license. Assisted

living facilities in Arizona are required to employ a licensed Assisted Living Facility

Manager in good standing. Licensed Assisted Living Facility Managers make upwards of

$50 per hour. When Plaintiff interviewed with Sunrise she possessed an “Assisted Living

Facility Manager’s License” in good standing, as reflected on her resume. Although Plaintiff

did not know it at the time, when she was interviewed Sunrise did not have employed a

licensed Assisted Living Facility Manager as required by law. Sunrise never discussed this

with Plaintiff or otherwise mentioned it needed to hire an Assisted Living Facility Manager.

Although Plaintiff interviewed to be a Coordinator, a position earning approximately

$20 per hour, Sunrise told her it could not give her that position, but instead offered her a

position as a “Caregiver,” for which she would be paid $10 per hour. Plaintiff accepted the

position, and began working as a Caregiver and earning $10 per hour. Shortly after, but

unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Sunrise, through Caroline, Plaintiff’s supervisor, falsely notified

Case 2:08-cv-01907-ROS Document 55 Filed 09/20/10 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 -

ADHS that its Assisted Living Facility Manager was Plaintiff. In early January, 2008,

Plaintiff was promoted to the position of “Coordinator,” and began earning $20 per hour. 

On April 9, 2008, Plaintiff discovered that Sunrise had been falsely holding her out

as Sunrise’s Facility Manager. When Plaintiff confronted Caroline Cline, Cline profusely

apologized, hugged Plaintiff, and admitted that she had copied Plaintiff’s license and given

it to the ADHS surveyor. For the following week, Cline repeatedly implored Plaintiff to sign

a letter authorizing Sunrise to use Plaintiff’s license, but Plaintiff refused. On April 16,

2009, Cline presented Plaintiff with a “Voluntary Resignation Form.” Plaintiff refused to

sign it. 

Plaintiff later discovered that throughout 2008, Sunrise intercepted numerous letters

from ADHS addressed to Plaintiff as the purported Facility Manager. These letters were

written to notify Plaintiff that the Sunrise Facility had numerous statutory and regulatory

deficiencies. Because she never received these letters, Plaintiff missed administrative

hearings to suspend and/or revoke her license for failing to respond to the notices of

deficiencies. Shortly after Plaintiff began to appreciate the scope of Sunrise’s fraudulent

activity, she resigned. Plaintiff spent several months attempting to convince ADHS that she

was not Sunrise’s Facility Manager. Although her license was not ultimately revoked, the

citied deficiencies and her failure to respond to numerous communications remain a part of

her file with ADHS. 

STANDARD Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine issue as to any material

fact” and “the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c). To

enter summary judgment, the Court must examine all evidence and find no dispute

concerning genuine issues of material fact. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.

242, 255-256 (1986). The evidence of the non-moving party is to be believed, and all

reasonable inferences drawn in its favor. See id. “[A] party seeking summary judgment

always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its

motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to

Case 2:08-cv-01907-ROS Document 55 Filed 09/20/10 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

2

 Defendant also argues Plaintiff cannot recover emotional distress damages for the

conversion and breach of duty claims because Defendant’s alleged misconduct was

insufficiently outrageous and Plaintiff’s emotional distress was not severe. Because Plaintiff

stipulated to the dismissal of the conversion and breach of duty claims, this argument is

moot.

- 4 -

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477

U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (internal citations omitted). However, if the non-moving party bears

the burden of proof at trial, the moving party’s summary judgment motion need only

highlight the absence of evidence supporting the non-moving party’s claims. See Devereaux

v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323-25).

The burden then shifts to the non-moving party who must produce evidence sustaining a

genuine issue of disputed material fact. See id.

DISCUSSION

Defendant moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s fraud claim on two grounds:

(1) Plaintiff suffered no economic damage, and (2) Defendant did not make any false

representations.2

 These arguments will be considered in turn. 

I. Plaintiff’s Economic Damages

Defendant argues Plaintiff’s fraud claim fails because she suffered no economic

damages. Plaintiff does not dispute that economic damages are an essential element of a

fraud claim in Arizona. Plaintiff argues she suffered several forms of economic damages.

She cites her testimony that she visited the emergency room three times in the first half of

May 2008 for chest pain, shortness of breath, and other symptoms of stress caused by

Defendant’s conduct. (Doc. 41 at ¶ 94). She cites evidence she resigned as a result of

Defendant’s conduct, was temporarily out of work, and ultimately took a lower paying

position until she was able to find a new position. (Doc. 41 at ¶¶ 84, 87). Finally, Plaintiff

argues she suffered pecuniary losses because Defendant held her out for several months as

the Facility Manager, but did not provide her with the extra compensation that Defendant

Case 2:08-cv-01907-ROS Document 55 Filed 09/20/10 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 -

provides to individuals who voluntarily accept that additional responsibility. Defendant does

not dispute Plaintiff’s contention that licensed Facility Managers typically earn significantly

more than Plaintiff earned. Drawing all reasonable inferences in the non-movant’s favor,

Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence to sustain a genuine issue of fact that she suffered

economic damages.

II. False Representation

Defendant argues the fraud claim also fails because Defendant did not make any false

representations. Defendant admits representing to ADHS that Plaintiff was Sunrise’s Facility

Manager. Defendant argues this representation was accurate. Defendant implies that

because it told ADHS that Plaintiff was the manager, Plaintiff was, by definition, Sunrise’s

manager. This argument manifestly fails and merits no substantive discussion. Defendant

has not disputed it told Plaintiff she was Sunrise’s “Coordinator” and given the job

responsibilities of a Coordinator, not a “Facility Manager.” Defendant has not disputed that

it never informed Plaintiff she was being held out as a “Manager,” and never gave her any

of the managerial responsibilities over the facility that are assigned to Facility Managers

under Arizona law. There is, without any doubt, a genuine issue of fact whether Defendant

fraudulently misrepresented that Plaintiff was Sunrise’s “Facility Manager.” Summary

judgment on Plaintiff’s fraud claim will be denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 40) IS

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendant is granted summary judgment

on all Plaintiff’s claims except for the fraud claim. 

FURTHER ORDERED Defendant Sunrise Scottsdale Senior Living, LLC, is

replaced as Defendant by Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc. Plaintiff shall file an

Amended Complaint with a caption that reflects this substitution. The Answer and Summary

Judgment briefing on file shall remain Defendant Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc.’s

operative answer and dispositive motion.

Case 2:08-cv-01907-ROS Document 55 Filed 09/20/10 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 -

FURTHER ORDERED the parties shall file the pretrial documents referenced in the

Court’s Scheduling Order within 30 days of the date of this Order.

FURTHER ORDERED by 14 days from the date of this Order, the parties shall

jointly file a notice of efforts at settlement, including whether the assistance of the Court is

required. If mutually desired, the Court will assign a District Judge, Magistrate Judge, or

Special Master to conduct a settlement conference. 

FURTHER ORDERED a Final Pretrial Conference will be set by separate order.

DATED this 20th day of September, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-01907-ROS Document 55 Filed 09/20/10 Page 6 of 6