Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
Mark T. Coffin, State Bar No. 168571 County of Santa Barbara
ScottA. Jaske, State Bar No. PL-461842 Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
MARK T. COFFIN, P.C. 11/18/2021 6:30 PM
21 E. Carrillo Street, Suite 240 By: Narzralli Baksh, Deputy
Santa Barbara, California 93101
Telephone: (805) 248-7118
Facsimile: (866) 567-4028
Email: mtc@markcoffinlaw.com
Email: scott@ markcoffinlaw.com
Attomeys for Plaintiff DAVID G. BERTRAND and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
10
11 DAVID G. BERTRAND, an Individual, Case No. 19CV02429
DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON, an
12 Individual, PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING BRIEF FOR
13 DEFAULT PROVE UP
Plaintiff,
14 vs.
Assigned for all purposes to the
Hon. Colleen K. Sterne
15 JESSICA BERRY, an Individual, and DOES 1
through 100, Inclusive, Dept: 5
16 Complaint Date: May 7, 2019
Defendants. Trial Date: (Trailing)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP
Plaintiffs’ Trial Brief discussed the causes of action in this case. This Closing Brief will
apply the evidence and testimony applicable to each claim, and summarize the damages that each
Plaintiff claims. (In certain cases, reference will be made to evidence and testimony presented in the
related Labor Commission Appeal (“LC Action,” SBSC #19CV 02357), to the extent applicable.)
I LIBEL AND DEFAMATION PER SE
Ms. Berry waged a protracted and intentional campaign to impugn the reputations of
Plaintiffs DAVID BERTRAND and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON. Ms. BERRY accused
Mr. BERTRAND of being a “rapist,” a “criminal,” a “predator,” in a series of text and email
messages to Ms. CHURCHILL-JOHNSON. All of these statements were defamatory on their face.
10 A. Defamatory Publications
As To David Bertrand:
11 Numerous witnesses testified as to Ms. BERRY’S false statements regarding Mr.
12 BERTRAND, all of which were defamatory per se. Santa Barbara Sheriff Department Deputy
13 Jose Alvarez testified that Ms. BERRY accused Mr. BERTRAND of “forcibly raping her” in
14 violation of Penal Code § 2610, as reflected in his report. (Exhibit 203.) Alvarez testified that
15 he made sure that BERRY was not speaking “metaphorically,” and understood exactly what
16 the crime of “rape” means. His report specifically notates Ms. BERRY ’s statement that “the
17 most recent sexual assault took place on September 19, 2017.” (On that date, Mr. BERTRAND
18 was a frail 88-year old man, and Ms. BERRY was a tall, robust 44-year old woman.)
19 Ms. BERRY then repeated her rape allegation to Sergeant Jeff Deornellas and
20 Detective Marta Sosa, and specifically requested that Mr. BERTRAND be criminally charged
21 and prosecuted by the Santa Barbara District A ttorney’s Office. Detective Sosa also testified
22 to Ms. BERRY’s report that and request that Mr. BERTRAND be prosecuted for criminal
23 “embezzlement” (Penal Code § 503) and “theft by false pretenses” (Penal Code § 532), as
24 (Exhibit 210.) As stated in Plaintiffs Trial Brief, there is no “privilege” to make a false
25 criminal complaint to law enforcement. (Civil Code section 47(b)(5).)
26 Ms. BERRY made these same allegations to the California Dept. of Fair Employment
27 and Housing. Investigator Salvador Alatorre testified that Ms. BERRY told him that Mr.
28 BERTRAND “sexually abused” her over a ten-year period, including one instance of “sexual
2
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP
intercourse.” Ms. BERRY told Alatorre that the “last incident” of sexual harassment occurred
on or about September 22, 2017. (Exhibit 212-DFEH Compliant, p. 2.) [She told the Sheriffs
that Mr. BERTRAND’s “last sexual assault” occurred on September 19, 2017. (Exhibit 203,
p. 003,)]
Yet, BERRY produced to Alatorre several months’ worth of her text messages to and
from her therapist, Barbara Palomarez, LFMT. (Exhibit 232.) The texts are entirely devoid of
any mention of a “sexual assault,” and certainly contain nothing regarding a “rape,” in spite of
the fact that the exhibit contains numbers texts during the period of September 19, 2017 to the
end of September 2017. If indeed, BERTRAND had “raped” or “sexually assaulted” BERRY
10 during this period, common sense would suggest that she would have at lease mentioned such
11 a traumatic event to her therapist. (See, e.g., Exhibit 232, pp. 090-105.)
12 On September 26, 2017, Mr. BERTRAND informed Ms. BERRY that the lease would
13 be terminated when it expired on October 5, 2017. (M. Coffin Declaration, par. 2.) In fact,
14 BERRY never made any allegation regarding “sexual assault” or “rape” until after she
15 learned that her lease was coming to an end. Ms. BERRY first contacted the Santa Barbara
16 Sheriffs on November 30, 2017. (Exhibit 203.)
17 The falsity of Ms. BERRY’s defamatory statements is apparent. After Ms. BERRY
18 originally reported forcible rape, she then retumed and told Sergeant Deornellas that “nothing
19 Mr. BERTRAND ever did was jailable,” and she withdrew her request to press charges. (Then,
20 she returned again, and renewed her request for criminal charges.) In her own swom testimony
21 during the LC Action trial, Ms. BERRY admitted under oath that Mr. BERTRAND never
22 “raped her.” Instead, she claimed that he merely “exposed himself” to her.
23 Ms. BERRY has also alleged that Mr. BERTRAND committed other sexual misdeeds,
24 such as forced or coerced oral copulation, forced masturbation, among other things. However,
25 even these “lesser” defamatory claims are refuted by Mr. BERTRAND’s own testimony, and
26 by the testimony of Mr. BERTRAND’S longtime employees Zoila Rosales and A nita V asquez,
27 who testified in the LC Action. Both of these ladies have known Mr. BERTRAND for far
28 longer that Ms. BERRY. Ms. Rosales and Ms. Vasquez also had the opportunity to observe
3
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP
Ms. BERRY and her interactions with Mr. BERTRAND, over a period of many years. Both
witnesses testified in the LC Action that they had never observed any “sexual assault,” or rape,
‘indecent exposure,” and had never seen any conduct that suggested Mr. BERTRAND had
ever done such a thing.
Ms. BERRY went on a text-writing campaign, repeating her false claims that Mr.
BERTRAND was a “rapist” and “criminal.” Ms. BERRY ’s text message to BERTRAND’s tenant
Jason Streatfeild stated: “DAVID LOVES THAT YOU PIMP YOUR GIRLS OUT TO HIM IN
THAT WAY. GUARANTEED. I SHOULD KNOW AFTER OVER A DECADE OF HIS
ABUSE.” (Decl. of J. Streatfield, and Exhibit 221.) Any objectively reasonable person would
10 interpret this as a statement that Mr. BERTRAND was a pedophile, and furthermore, that Ms.
11 BERRY had personal knowledge and experience to support this outrageous claim. Mr. Streatfeild
12 interpreted the text in exactly that fashion. (J. Streatfeild Declaration, par. 6-8.)
13 Ms. BERRY sent a long series of texts and emails to Ms. CHURCHILL-JOHNSON, as
14 detailed in her declaration and authenticated thereto. In those texts, she called Mr. BERTRAND a
15 “predator,” a “liar,” a “sexual predator,” and a “criminal” (repeatedly). Ms. BERRY personally
16 assaulted Ms. CHURCHILL-JOHNSON and threatened to “kill” Mr. BERTRAND. (Declaration of
17 D. Churchill-Johnson, and Exhibits 204, 207, 213, 214, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, and 224.)
18 Ms. BERRY even sent a defamatory text message to Mr. BERTRAND’s bookkeeper,
19 Katherine Hirsch, which read: “Y ou are a rapist as much as he [David Bertrand] is and your evil
20 deeds WILL BE EXPOSED....” (K. Hirsch Declaration, par. 2, also Exb. 209.)
21 All of the above statements are defamatory on their face, and all are false. (See, e.g., D.
22 Bertrand Declaration, par. 15-16.)
23 B. Defamatory Statements As To Dorothy Churchill-J ohnson:
24 In addition to the above, Ms. BERRY published a review of Ms. CHURCHILL-
25 JOHNSON on the Google platform. In this review, BERRY represented to the public at large
26 that Ms. CHURCHIL-JOHNSON “deceived young, vulnerable women,” and “exploit(ed)
27 them for David Bertrand’s entertainment.” Ms. Berry further stated that Ms. CHURCHILL-
28 JOHNSON can only afford her “artist lifestyle” by the exploitation of women. (D. Churchill-
4
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP
Johnson Declaration, par. 13, and Exhibit 224.) All of these statements are defamatory on their
face, and all are false.
Il. INTRUSION
All of the facts and evidence regarding defamation are also probative as to Plaintiff’s
intrusion claim, as they are “intrusion(s) into the private affairs of another in a manner that would be
highly offensive to a reasonable person.” In addition to the above, Ms. CHURCILL-JOHNSON was
forced to seek and obtain a Temporary Restraining Order against Ms. BERRY after the latter entered
her house uninvited, and physically assaulted her. Likewise, Mr. BERTRAND was forced to seek
and obtain a TRO against Ms. BERRY after she threatened to “kill him.” (See D. Churchill-Johnson
10 Declaration, par. 14; see also SBSC cases 20CV 03231 and 20CV 03259.)
11 TI. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
12 Ms. BERRY’S actions have caused both Plaintiffs to suffer severe emotional distress. Both
13 Plaintiffs are “elders,” as defined by Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.27, and both suffer from a
14 weakened immune system. (See D. Churchill-Johnson Declaration, par. 20; D. Bertrand
15 Declaration, par. 14-16.) Ms. BERRY ’s actions were outrageous, and made with the specific,
16 malicious intent of causing both Plaintiffs to suffer emotional distress, as described in their
17 respective declarations. Ms. BERRY should be liable for compensatory and punitive damages for
18 her conduct.
19 Iv. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES
20 As evidenced in the LC Action by the testimony of Katherine Hirsch and by Ms. BERRY
21 herself, BERRY diverted Air BNB rental payments which were supposed to go to Mr.
22 BERTRAND’S bank account, in a total amount of over $12,000. She then engaged in a series of
23 acts and practices including defaming Plaintiffs, for the specific purpose of damaging their business
24 and professional reputations. All of these are unfair business practices subject to liability under
25 Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.
26 Vv ELDER ABUSE
27 Mr. BERTRAND is 92 years old, and qualifies as an “elder” as defined by Welfare &
28 Institutions Code§ 15610.27. (D. Bertrand Declaration, par. 1.) Ms. BERRY engaged in both
5
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP
financial and mental abuse, as defined in Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.07(a).) As stated,
Ms. BERRY took over $12,000 of Mr. BERTRAND’s rental income without his knowledge or
permission, while at the same time negotiating for a commission. Ms. BERRY also engaged ina
campaign of intimidation and harassment, exemplified by her numerous defamatory statements to
third parties, and her several attempts to bring false criminal charges against Mr. BERTRAND. Her
conduct was both despicable and malicious, as established by clear and convincing evidence
provided by Ms. CHURCHILL-JOHNSON, Ms. Hirsch, Mr. Streatfield, and officers Alvarez,
Deornellas, and Sosa.
As discussed below, Mr. BERTRAND will request compensatory, general, and exemplary
10 damages, in addition to reasonable attomey fees incurred to bring this action, pursuant to Welfare
11 and Institutions Code §§ 15657(a), 15657.5, and Marron v. Superior Court (2003) 108 Cal.A pp.4th
12 1049. (M. Coffin Declaration.)
13 VI. QUANTUM MERIUT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT, AND RESTITUTION
14 As Ms. CHURCHILL-JOHNSON and Ms. Katherine Hirsch testified at the trial of case
15 19CV 02357 that Ms. BERRY borrowed $23,231.00 from Mr. BERTRAND, and executed a
16 Promissory Note for that amount on October 16, 2009, which also provided for recovery of
17 reasonable attorneys’ fees. (See Trial Exhibit 102 from Case 19CV 02357.) As stated, she also
18 unjustly diverted $12,000 in Air BNB income.
19 VII. DAMAGES
20 Mr. BERTRAND has concurrently submitted a proposed Judgment in the total amount of
21 $690,000, with the following breakdown:
22 Pain & Suffering: $100,000
23 Emotional Distress: $100,000
24 Defamation: $100,000
25 Unjust Enrichment/Quantum Meruit: $50,000
26 Punitive Damages: $250,000
27 Attorney fees (Elder Abuse, Promissory Note) $90,000
28 TOTAL: $690,000
6
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP
Ms. CHURCHILL-JOHNSON has concurrently submitted a proposed Judgment in the total
amount of $600,000, with the following breakdown:
Pain & Suffering: $100,000
Emotional Distress: $100,000
Defamation: $100,000
Unjust Enrichment/Quantum Meruit: $50,000
Punitive Damages: $250,000
TOTAL: $600,000
10 Respectfully submitted,
11 DATED: November 18, 2021 MARK T. COFFIN, P.C.
12
13
Mark T. Coffin, Esq.
14 Scott A. Jaske, P.L. Esq.
< Attorneys for Plaintiffs DAVID G. BERTRAND
15 and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING a FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California Mark T. Coffin, State Bar No. 168571 County of Santa Barbara ScottA. Jaske, State Bar No. PL-461842 Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer MARK T. COFFIN, P.C. 11/18/2021 6:30 PM 21 E. Carrillo Street, Suite 240 By: Narzralli Baksh, Deputy Santa Barbara, California 93101 Telephone: (805) 248-7118 Facsimile: (866) 567-4028 Email: mtc@markcoffinlaw.com Email: scott@ markcoffinlaw.com Attomeys for Plaintiff DAVID G. BERTRAND and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 10 11 DAVID G. BERTRAND, an Individual, Case No. 19CV02429 DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON, an 12 Individual, PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING BRIEF FOR 13 DEFAULT PROVE UP Plaintiff, 14 vs. Assigned for all purposes to the Hon. Colleen K. Sterne 15 JESSICA BERRY, an Individual, and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Dept: 5 16 Complaint Date: May 7, 2019 Defendants. Trial Date: (Trailing) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP Plaintiffs’ Trial Brief discussed the causes of action in this case. This Closing Brief will apply the evidence and testimony applicable to each claim, and summarize the damages that each Plaintiff claims. (In certain cases, reference will be made to evidence and testimony presented in the related Labor Commission Appeal (“LC Action,” SBSC #19CV 02357), to the extent applicable.) I LIBEL AND DEFAMATION PER SE Ms. Berry waged a protracted and intentional campaign to impugn the reputations of Plaintiffs DAVID BERTRAND and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON. Ms. BERRY accused Mr. BERTRAND of being a “rapist,” a “criminal,” a “predator,” in a series of text and email messages to Ms. CHURCHILL-JOHNSON. All of these statements were defamatory on their face. 10 A. Defamatory Publications As To David Bertrand: 11 Numerous witnesses testified as to Ms. BERRY’S false statements regarding Mr. 12 BERTRAND, all of which were defamatory per se. Santa Barbara Sheriff Department Deputy 13 Jose Alvarez testified that Ms. BERRY accused Mr. BERTRAND of “forcibly raping her” in 14 violation of Penal Code § 2610, as reflected in his report. (Exhibit 203.) Alvarez testified that 15 he made sure that BERRY was not speaking “metaphorically,” and understood exactly what 16 the crime of “rape” means. His report specifically notates Ms. BERRY ’s statement that “the 17 most recent sexual assault took place on September 19, 2017.” (On that date, Mr. BERTRAND 18 was a frail 88-year old man, and Ms. BERRY was a tall, robust 44-year old woman.) 19 Ms. BERRY then repeated her rape allegation to Sergeant Jeff Deornellas and 20 Detective Marta Sosa, and specifically requested that Mr. BERTRAND be criminally charged 21 and prosecuted by the Santa Barbara District A ttorney’s Office. Detective Sosa also testified 22 to Ms. BERRY’s report that and request that Mr. BERTRAND be prosecuted for criminal 23 “embezzlement” (Penal Code § 503) and “theft by false pretenses” (Penal Code § 532), as 24 (Exhibit 210.) As stated in Plaintiffs Trial Brief, there is no “privilege” to make a false 25 criminal complaint to law enforcement. (Civil Code section 47(b)(5).) 26 Ms. BERRY made these same allegations to the California Dept. of Fair Employment 27 and Housing. Investigator Salvador Alatorre testified that Ms. BERRY told him that Mr. 28 BERTRAND “sexually abused” her over a ten-year period, including one instance of “sexual 2 PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP intercourse.” Ms. BERRY told Alatorre that the “last incident” of sexual harassment occurred on or about September 22, 2017. (Exhibit 212-DFEH Compliant, p. 2.) [She told the Sheriffs that Mr. BERTRAND’s “last sexual assault” occurred on September 19, 2017. (Exhibit 203, p. 003,)] Yet, BERRY produced to Alatorre several months’ worth of her text messages to and from her therapist, Barbara Palomarez, LFMT. (Exhibit 232.) The texts are entirely devoid of any mention of a “sexual assault,” and certainly contain nothing regarding a “rape,” in spite of the fact that the exhibit contains numbers texts during the period of September 19, 2017 to the end of September 2017. If indeed, BERTRAND had “raped” or “sexually assaulted” BERRY 10 during this period, common sense would suggest that she would have at lease mentioned such 11 a traumatic event to her therapist. (See, e.g., Exhibit 232, pp. 090-105.) 12 On September 26, 2017, Mr. BERTRAND informed Ms. BERRY that the lease would 13 be terminated when it expired on October 5, 2017. (M. Coffin Declaration, par. 2.) In fact, 14 BERRY never made any allegation regarding “sexual assault” or “rape” until after she 15 learned that her lease was coming to an end. Ms. BERRY first contacted the Santa Barbara 16 Sheriffs on November 30, 2017. (Exhibit 203.) 17 The falsity of Ms. BERRY’s defamatory statements is apparent. After Ms. BERRY 18 originally reported forcible rape, she then retumed and told Sergeant Deornellas that “nothing 19 Mr. BERTRAND ever did was jailable,” and she withdrew her request to press charges. (Then, 20 she returned again, and renewed her request for criminal charges.) In her own swom testimony 21 during the LC Action trial, Ms. BERRY admitted under oath that Mr. BERTRAND never 22 “raped her.” Instead, she claimed that he merely “exposed himself” to her. 23 Ms. BERRY has also alleged that Mr. BERTRAND committed other sexual misdeeds, 24 such as forced or coerced oral copulation, forced masturbation, among other things. However, 25 even these “lesser” defamatory claims are refuted by Mr. BERTRAND’s own testimony, and 26 by the testimony of Mr. BERTRAND’S longtime employees Zoila Rosales and A nita V asquez, 27 who testified in the LC Action. Both of these ladies have known Mr. BERTRAND for far 28 longer that Ms. BERRY. Ms. Rosales and Ms. Vasquez also had the opportunity to observe 3 PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP Ms. BERRY and her interactions with Mr. BERTRAND, over a period of many years. Both witnesses testified in the LC Action that they had never observed any “sexual assault,” or rape, ‘indecent exposure,” and had never seen any conduct that suggested Mr. BERTRAND had ever done such a thing. Ms. BERRY went on a text-writing campaign, repeating her false claims that Mr. BERTRAND was a “rapist” and “criminal.” Ms. BERRY ’s text message to BERTRAND’s tenant Jason Streatfeild stated: “DAVID LOVES THAT YOU PIMP YOUR GIRLS OUT TO HIM IN THAT WAY. GUARANTEED. I SHOULD KNOW AFTER OVER A DECADE OF HIS ABUSE.” (Decl. of J. Streatfield, and Exhibit 221.) Any objectively reasonable person would 10 interpret this as a statement that Mr. BERTRAND was a pedophile, and furthermore, that Ms. 11 BERRY had personal knowledge and experience to support this outrageous claim. Mr. Streatfeild 12 interpreted the text in exactly that fashion. (J. Streatfeild Declaration, par. 6-8.) 13 Ms. BERRY sent a long series of texts and emails to Ms. CHURCHILL-JOHNSON, as 14 detailed in her declaration and authenticated thereto. In those texts, she called Mr. BERTRAND a 15 “predator,” a “liar,” a “sexual predator,” and a “criminal” (repeatedly). Ms. BERRY personally 16 assaulted Ms. CHURCHILL-JOHNSON and threatened to “kill” Mr. BERTRAND. (Declaration of 17 D. Churchill-Johnson, and Exhibits 204, 207, 213, 214, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, and 224.) 18 Ms. BERRY even sent a defamatory text message to Mr. BERTRAND’s bookkeeper, 19 Katherine Hirsch, which read: “Y ou are a rapist as much as he [David Bertrand] is and your evil 20 deeds WILL BE EXPOSED....” (K. Hirsch Declaration, par. 2, also Exb. 209.) 21 All of the above statements are defamatory on their face, and all are false. (See, e.g., D. 22 Bertrand Declaration, par. 15-16.) 23 B. Defamatory Statements As To Dorothy Churchill-J ohnson: 24 In addition to the above, Ms. BERRY published a review of Ms. CHURCHILL- 25 JOHNSON on the Google platform. In this review, BERRY represented to the public at large 26 that Ms. CHURCHIL-JOHNSON “deceived young, vulnerable women,” and “exploit(ed) 27 them for David Bertrand’s entertainment.” Ms. Berry further stated that Ms. CHURCHILL- 28 JOHNSON can only afford her “artist lifestyle” by the exploitation of women. (D. Churchill- 4 PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP Johnson Declaration, par. 13, and Exhibit 224.) All of these statements are defamatory on their face, and all are false. Il. INTRUSION All of the facts and evidence regarding defamation are also probative as to Plaintiff’s intrusion claim, as they are “intrusion(s) into the private affairs of another in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.” In addition to the above, Ms. CHURCILL-JOHNSON was forced to seek and obtain a Temporary Restraining Order against Ms. BERRY after the latter entered her house uninvited, and physically assaulted her. Likewise, Mr. BERTRAND was forced to seek and obtain a TRO against Ms. BERRY after she threatened to “kill him.” (See D. Churchill-Johnson 10 Declaration, par. 14; see also SBSC cases 20CV 03231 and 20CV 03259.) 11 TI. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 12 Ms. BERRY’S actions have caused both Plaintiffs to suffer severe emotional distress. Both 13 Plaintiffs are “elders,” as defined by Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.27, and both suffer from a 14 weakened immune system. (See D. Churchill-Johnson Declaration, par. 20; D. Bertrand 15 Declaration, par. 14-16.) Ms. BERRY ’s actions were outrageous, and made with the specific, 16 malicious intent of causing both Plaintiffs to suffer emotional distress, as described in their 17 respective declarations. Ms. BERRY should be liable for compensatory and punitive damages for 18 her conduct. 19 Iv. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 20 As evidenced in the LC Action by the testimony of Katherine Hirsch and by Ms. BERRY 21 herself, BERRY diverted Air BNB rental payments which were supposed to go to Mr. 22 BERTRAND’S bank account, in a total amount of over $12,000. She then engaged in a series of 23 acts and practices including defaming Plaintiffs, for the specific purpose of damaging their business 24 and professional reputations. All of these are unfair business practices subject to liability under 25 Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. 26 Vv ELDER ABUSE 27 Mr. BERTRAND is 92 years old, and qualifies as an “elder” as defined by Welfare & 28 Institutions Code§ 15610.27. (D. Bertrand Declaration, par. 1.) Ms. BERRY engaged in both 5 PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP financial and mental abuse, as defined in Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.07(a).) As stated, Ms. BERRY took over $12,000 of Mr. BERTRAND’s rental income without his knowledge or permission, while at the same time negotiating for a commission. Ms. BERRY also engaged ina campaign of intimidation and harassment, exemplified by her numerous defamatory statements to third parties, and her several attempts to bring false criminal charges against Mr. BERTRAND. Her conduct was both despicable and malicious, as established by clear and convincing evidence provided by Ms. CHURCHILL-JOHNSON, Ms. Hirsch, Mr. Streatfield, and officers Alvarez, Deornellas, and Sosa. As discussed below, Mr. BERTRAND will request compensatory, general, and exemplary 10 damages, in addition to reasonable attomey fees incurred to bring this action, pursuant to Welfare 11 and Institutions Code §§ 15657(a), 15657.5, and Marron v. Superior Court (2003) 108 Cal.A pp.4th 12 1049. (M. Coffin Declaration.) 13 VI. QUANTUM MERIUT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT, AND RESTITUTION 14 As Ms. CHURCHILL-JOHNSON and Ms. Katherine Hirsch testified at the trial of case 15 19CV 02357 that Ms. BERRY borrowed $23,231.00 from Mr. BERTRAND, and executed a 16 Promissory Note for that amount on October 16, 2009, which also provided for recovery of 17 reasonable attorneys’ fees. (See Trial Exhibit 102 from Case 19CV 02357.) As stated, she also 18 unjustly diverted $12,000 in Air BNB income. 19 VII. DAMAGES 20 Mr. BERTRAND has concurrently submitted a proposed Judgment in the total amount of 21 $690,000, with the following breakdown: 22 Pain & Suffering: $100,000 23 Emotional Distress: $100,000 24 Defamation: $100,000 25 Unjust Enrichment/Quantum Meruit: $50,000 26 Punitive Damages: $250,000 27 Attorney fees (Elder Abuse, Promissory Note) $90,000 28 TOTAL: $690,000 6 PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP Ms. CHURCHILL-JOHNSON has concurrently submitted a proposed Judgment in the total amount of $600,000, with the following breakdown: Pain & Suffering: $100,000 Emotional Distress: $100,000 Defamation: $100,000 Unjust Enrichment/Quantum Meruit: $50,000 Punitive Damages: $250,000 TOTAL: $600,000 10 Respectfully submitted, 11 DATED: November 18, 2021 MARK T. COFFIN, P.C. 12 13 Mark T. Coffin, Esq. 14 Scott A. Jaske, P.L. Esq. < Attorneys for Plaintiffs DAVID G. BERTRAND 15 and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING a FOR DEFAULT PROVE UP