Oakmont Senior Living Lawsuits: Wildfire, Understaffing, and Wrongful Death

Oakmont Senior Living lawsuits span wrongful death and abandonment claims from the 2017 Tubbs Fire, a state license revocation accusation that ended in a $500,000 civil enforcement settlement, two class actions alleging understaffing and fraud, a $16.5 million wrongful death settlement in Sonoma County, and a 2024 fair housing settlement covering 30 facilities. The cases target both Oakmont Senior Living and its management arm, Oakmont Management Group, and together they outline a pattern of allegations centered on staffing, emergency preparedness, and resident care.

Tubbs Fire Abandonment and Wrongful Death Suit

The highest-profile litigation grew out of the October 2017 Tubbs Fire in Santa Rosa, which swept through two Oakmont facilities on Fountaingrove Avenue: Villa Capri and Varenna. Attorney Kathryn Stebner filed suit in November 2017, alleging that only three caregivers were on duty overnight at Villa Capri for nearly 70 elderly residents, including dozens with dementia in a locked unit.¹ The complaint said staff abandoned at least a third of the residents, who survived only because family members and first responders arrived to carry them out.²

Named plaintiff Bess Budow, 92, suffered a broken hip, a broken tooth, and abrasions during the evacuation and died in December 2017. The suit alleged at least two residents died as a result of the ordeal and that Oakmont later disposed of the burned Villa Capri remains in a landfill without letting residents or families search for personal belongings.¹

Oakmont denied the allegations. In court filings, it argued that the plaintiffs “failed to take precautions that would have avoided and diminished their injuries” and raised 34 defenses, contending that residents and families bore some fault.² The company also said authorities had kept staff from re-entering the area, a claim Santa Rosa Police disputed. Captain Rainer Navarro told reporters, “We were not stopping anybody from helping save lives that night.”¹

The Stebner suit, representing 17 Villa Capri residents and family members, settled on the eve of trial in August 2018. The financial terms were kept confidential, and the court ordered both sides to deliver a signed agreement by September 11, 2018.³⁴

State License Accusation and Government Enforcement

In September 2018, the Community Care Licensing Division of the California Department of Social Services filed a formal accusation seeking to revoke the licenses of Villa Capri and Varenna and to permanently ban their administrators from the state’s assisted living industry. The accusation cited abandonment of more than 20 residents at Villa Capri, saying they “would have perished when the facility burned to the ground” without outside rescuers. At Varenna, investigators alleged administrators failed to direct evacuations and in some cases told staff to return residents to their rooms to avoid “causing issues” for the company. The state also accused Oakmont of a “dishonest public relations campaign” and of employees lying to investigators.⁵

Oakmont reached a settlement with the Department of Social Services in November 2018, acknowledging that staff were unprepared for the fire. The company and its administrators were placed on probation.⁶

A parallel civil enforcement action by the Sonoma County District Attorney and the California Attorney General named Oakmont Senior Living LLC, Oakmont Management Group LLC, and Varenna LLC. Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Gary Nadler approved a stipulated judgment on September 3, 2020. Oakmont paid $500,000 in civil penalties and investigative costs, split between the county and the state.⁷ The company was also required to implement enhanced disaster and evacuation plans, train staff on emergency procedures, and hire an independent monitor for five years to verify compliance. The judgment included protections for individual staff from criminal prosecution, and investigators found no evidence of criminal conduct by employees.⁸

Employee Retaliation Lawsuit

In April 2019, a group of former and current Oakmont employees sued in Sonoma County Superior Court, accusing the company of pushing blame for the fire failures onto frontline workers. The 39-page complaint alleged that Oakmont tried to bribe and intimidate staff to keep them from speaking with state investigators and publicly blamed caregivers and maintenance workers for abandoning residents to conceal corporate-level failures, including the lack of emergency training, equipment, and protocols.⁶ The plaintiffs included four former employees, a current maintenance worker, one employee’s spouse, and two former residents who added claims of negligence and elder abuse.⁹ The employees said they were forced to rescue more than 100 residents without emergency lights, flashlights, generators, or any prior training.

2017 Class Action: Lollock v. Oakmont

Months before the Tubbs Fire, Oakmont was already facing a proposed class action over staffing. Lollock et al v. Oakmont Senior Living, LLC (Case No. 17-cv-5912) was filed in Alameda County Superior Court in September 2017 and later moved to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleged a scheme to defraud seniors, people with disabilities, and their families.¹⁰

According to the complaint, Oakmont’s contracts promised families that staffing would be tailored to individual residents through a “care points” system, but staffing levels stayed static regardless of what assessments showed residents needed.¹¹ Executive directors were allegedly evaluated on meeting profit targets and risked losing bonuses or their jobs if they spent beyond budget by hiring additional staff. The complaint also described residents left in soiled garments for extended periods, unexplained injuries and falls, slow or no responses to call buttons, medication errors, and dehydration.¹² The proposed class covered current and former California residents over the previous four years, potentially up to 4,000 people. Federal court records show the case was terminated as of November 2017, though the available docket does not say whether it was dismissed, settled, or resolved on other grounds.¹³

2024 Class Action Over Algorithmic Understaffing

In May 2024, the elder-abuse firm Garcia & Artigliere filed a new class action against Oakmont Management Group in Orange County Superior Court. Brought on behalf of resident Diana Sencerbox and a proposed class, the suit alleges that Oakmont “intentionally designed their algorithm to result in staffing levels which are insufficient and lower than actually necessary to meet resident needs” across all 90 of its California licensed residential care facilities for the elderly. The complaint contends the practice was built to minimize labor costs and increase profits, in violation of California statutes requiring staffing “sufficient in numbers, and competent to provide the services necessary.”¹⁴

The plaintiffs seek damages, attorney fees, and court orders requiring Oakmont to raise its average caregiver-to-resident ratio by 15%, conduct quarterly resident satisfaction surveys, and improve reporting of abuse and regulatory compliance. The lawsuit invokes both the California Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly Act and the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act.¹⁴

$16.5 Million Wrongful Death Settlement

A separate wrongful death case in Sonoma County produced a $16.5 million settlement involving a memory care unit at an assisted living facility. The resident suffered multiple unwitnessed falls that plaintiffs attributed to chronic understaffing, ultimately leading to a fatal hip fracture.¹⁵ The source listing the settlement does not name the specific facility, though the location and facility type are consistent with Oakmont’s Sonoma County operations.

Fair Housing Settlement Over Deaf Residents

In September 2024, the California Civil Rights Department announced a mediated settlement with Oakmont Management Group covering 30 of its assisted living communities. The matter began with complaints from the Fair Housing Federation of Southern California, which conducted testing that it said showed staff at various Oakmont facilities rejecting requests for American Sign Language interpretation and failing to engage with the reasonable accommodation process when prospective residents or their families asked for ongoing ASL assistance.¹⁶

Oakmont agreed to pay $110,000 to the Fair Housing Federation and to make policy changes across the 30 facilities. The required reforms included modifying policies to protect the housing rights of deaf applicants and residents, training staff on fair housing laws and accommodation procedures, and posting information in common areas about how to report discrimination to the state.¹⁷ Oakmont did not admit liability or wrongdoing in the agreement.¹⁸

1
ABC7 News. SF Attorney Files Lawsuit Accusing Oakmont Senior Living of Elder Abuse and Negligence
2
ABC7 News. Oakmont Senior Living Responds to Wrongful Death Lawsuit
3
Senior Housing News. Oakmont Senior Living Settles Wildfire-Related Lawsuit
4
McKnight’s Senior Living. Oakmont Senior Living Agrees to Settle Wildfire-Related Lawsuit
5
California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform. State Seeks to Revoke Licenses of Oakmont Assisted Living Facilities
6
The Press Democrat. Lawsuit Accuses Oakmont Senior Living of Slandering Staff to Cover Up Problems
7
Sonoma County District Attorney. Varenna and Villa Capri Settle Law Enforcement Action
8
The Press Democrat. Oakmont Senior Living to Pay $500,000 to Settle State, County Investigation
9
California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform. New Lawsuit Accuses Oakmont Senior Living of Blaming Staff to Cover Up Its Failures
10
Truth in Advertising. Oakmont Senior Living
11
The Press Democrat. Lawsuit Alleges Fraud, Elder Financial Abuse at Oakmont Senior Living
12
Truth in Advertising. Lollock v. Oakmont Senior Living Complaint
13
PACER Monitor. Lollock et al v. Oakmont Senior Living, LLC
14
iCrowdNewswire. Garcia Artigliere Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Oakmont Management Group Alleging Understaffing
15
SGG Law Firm. Case Results
16
California Civil Rights Department. Southern California Assisted Living Company to Change Policies on Accommodating Deaf Residents
17
California Civil Rights Department. FHFSC v. OMG Settlement Agreement
18
McKnight’s Senior Living. 30 Assisted Living Communities Reach Settlement for Allegedly Not Accommodating Deaf Residents