Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Susan Ottele, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Adam J. Collier, sought default judgment against Marion Austin as administrator of the Estate of Aaron Hodges. Ottele alleged that two former correctional officers were liable for her son’s October 2020 death by suicide while he was in custody at Kern Valley State Prison. In August 2024, the district judge granted partial summary judgment, dismissed all claims against one officer, and left only a state-law wrongful death claim against Hodges. After Hodges died, the district judge ultimately substituted Austin, in her capacity as administrator of his estate, on February 18, 2026.
The substituted defendant was personally served with the summons and operative first amended complaint on March 11, 2026, but did not file a responsive pleading. The Clerk entered default on April 10, and Ottele moved for default judgment on May 11, requesting $3 million. The magistrate judge held a June 16 hearing at which Ottele and her counsel appeared but the defendant did not, then permitted supplemental briefing on damages. The defendant filed no response to either the motion or supplemental brief. The October 19, 2026 findings and recommendation therefore address a proposed judgment, not a final damages judgment already entered by the district judge.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge first confirmed federal-question jurisdiction based on the Section 1983 claims pleaded in the operative complaint and supplemental jurisdiction over the surviving state wrongful death claim, notwithstanding dismissal of the federal claims. Personal service of the summons and complaint satisfied Rule 4. Later transmissions of default-related papers and hearing orders by email, supported by counsel’s declaration that the defendant had previously acknowledged correspondence at that address, were reasonably calculated to provide notice. The court also rejected Ottele’s objection to the substitution wording: Austin had been substituted specifically as administrator of Hodges’s estate, consistent with the district judge’s order.
Applying the Eitel factors, the court found that denying default judgment would leave Ottele without a remedy because the defendant refused to defend. The remaining claim proceeded under California’s wrongful death statutes, and Ottele had standing as the decedent’s parent and intestate successor, with her assertion that no one had a superior right to sue. The earlier summary judgment ruling had already determined that she adequately pleaded the wrongful death elements. The well-pleaded facts were deemed admitted, no material factual dispute or excusable neglect appeared, and the defendant’s nonparticipation made a merits decision practically impossible. The $3 million request was neutral at the liability stage because of the seriousness of the alleged conduct. On balance, the factors favored default judgment.
Damages required separate proof because default establishes liability but not the amount of loss. The court rejected using the award to punish institutional failures, compensate for grief or emotional distress, or rely on materially different Section 1983 verdicts. California law instead permitted compensation for the pecuniary value of the lost comfort, society, and companionship. Letters and other evidence showed a close bond between Ottele and her son. Estimating that she was about 71 when he died and had a life expectancy of 79, the court calculated eight years of loss at approximately $62,500 annually, yielding $500,000. It recommended granting the motion in part, entering default judgment against Austin as estate administrator, and awarding that amount. The parties have 14 days after service to object before the assigned district judge acts on the recommendation.
Key Takeaways
- Entry of default does not establish unliquidated damages; the plaintiff must still prove that the compensation sought corresponds to the injuries pleaded.
- The Eitel factors supported liability because the properly served defendant did not participate, the wrongful death claim was adequately pleaded, and no material factual dispute remained.
- California wrongful death damages compensated the lost comfort and society of the decedent, not the mother’s grief, emotional distress, or a desire to punish custodial misconduct.
- The court valued eight years of loss at approximately $62,500 per year and recommended $500,000 rather than the requested $3 million.
- The document is a magistrate judge’s recommendation subject to written objections and review by the assigned district judge, not the final entry of judgment.
Why It Matters
The recommendation separates the consequences of default from the independent proof required for wrongful death damages. Although the defendant’s nonparticipation established liability under the well-pleaded allegations, it did not entitle Ottele to her requested amount or permit considerations of punishment and grief that California law excludes.
The proposed $500,000 award rests on evidence of the parent-child relationship and an eight-year life-expectancy calculation. The recommendation also resolves threshold service, jurisdiction, standing, and substitution issues before submitting the proposed judgment to the district judge.