A jury on Tuesday found that Watsonville City Councilman Jimmy Dutra committed sexual battery and lewd and lascivious acts on a minor in his Los Angeles apartment 19 years ago.
The jury also found that Dutra is liable for damages from the emotional and mental suffering stemming from the abuse.
In making that finding, the jury awarded Stephen Siefke more than $1 million in damages for emotional and mental suffering and economic losses, among other things.
The jury did not, however, determine that Dutra acted with malice, and so could not award punitive damages.
One juror dissented.
The verdict, delivered just before noon, was not a criminal conviction. It came after roughly three days of deliberation, which followed a weeklong civil trial.
Siefke says that he was 12 when and his family was staying with Dutra in 2005 in Los Angeles while they visited Disneyland. During one night, Dutra returned home and climbed onto the couch where Siefke was sleeping, reached into his pants and fondled him, Siefke says.
No criminal charges were filed.
In a prepared statement, Siefke said that the verdict was a “momentous occasion.”
“After a long and arduous journey, I have received validation for my story—a story that has been cloaked in fear, shame, and secrecy for far too long,” he stated. “The victory in this case is not just mine, but a testament to the bravery of all survivors who have faced the daunting task of coming forward.”
Dutra was not in court when the verdict was read. He declined on Tuesday to comment on his absence.
He vehemently denied Siefke’s allegations, saying during the trial that he hardly knew Siefke.
The allegations, he said, stemmed from a dispute over his late father’s estate with his father’s girlfriend.
Dutra doubled down on the story and the denial in an email Tuesday.
“I have said and will maintain that this allegation is false and never happened,” he stated. “This case was about revenge and money.”
Dutra also points to the timing of the lawsuit, since it came just before people began voting in the 2022 Primary election, where he was running for Santa Cruz County Supervisor.
Siefke says he was inspired to file the suit when he moved to Santa Cruz County and saw Dutra’s election posters, and learned that he was also teaching in a middle school.
“The person who caused me so much pain was not just a perpetrator but someone who was allowed to work within our schools, putting countless other children at risk,” Siefke said. “Knowing that my story has played a role in protecting future generations from such harm brings me a profound sense of relief and justice.”
Dutra’s attorney said that he is seeking options for an appeal.
Siefke’s attorney Dana Scruggs said that grounds for such an appeal would come from a legal mistake or a judicial error.
“Which I don’t see in this case,” he said.
•••
Total jury award
• Future economic loss: $383,000
• Past non-economic loss, including emotional and emotional suffering: $500,000
• Future non-economic loss including mental and emotional suffering: $250,000
Total: $1,133,000
••••
Stephen Siefke’s statement
Today marks a momentous occasion for me, one that is both overwhelming and profoundly emotional. After a long and arduous journey, I have received validation for my story—a story that has been cloaked in fear, shame, and secrecy for far too long. The victory in this case is not just mine, but a testament to the bravery of all survivors who have faced the daunting task of coming forward.
For years, I lived in the shadows of this trauma, grappling with the intense fear of not being believed and the debilitating shame of speaking out. The person who caused me so much pain was not just a perpetrator but someone who was allowed to work within our schools, putting countless other children at risk. Knowing that my story has played a role in protecting future generations from such harm brings me a profound sense of relief and justice. I want to extend my deepest gratitude to those who stood by me throughout this journey. Your support has been my anchor, and your belief in my truth has given me the strength to persevere. Your unwavering encouragement made this victory possible, and for that, I am eternally grateful. Conversely, I must express my disappointment and frustration toward those who failed to support me. Your lack of empathy and refusal to believe only added to the pain of an already difficult journey. This case has underscored the importance of standing with survivors, not turning away from their suffering. I hope that those who were indifferent will reflect on their actions and understand the profound impact of their support—or lack thereof. My hope is that this case serves as a beacon of hope for other victims of abuse. To those who are still suffering in silence, know that it is okay to stand up for what is right. There are people out there who will listen, believe, and support you through the darkest of times. You are not alone, and your voice deserves to be heard. This victory is not just about finding justice for myself but about ensuring that no child will have to endure what I did. It is about creating a safer world where children can thrive without fear. To anyone who has faced similar struggles, I urge you to find the courage to speak out. There are allies ready to support you, and together, we can work towards a future where every child is protected and every survivor finds the justice they deserve. Thank you. Stephen
••••
Jimmy Dutra’s statement
I am extremely disappointed in the decision that came out today. I have said and will maintain that this allegation is false and never happened. This case was about revenge and money.
Reaching the threshold in a civil suit is extremely low. In this case an allegation and hearsay was enough. However, when the jury had to address the cause regarding malice and oppression which required more scrutiny and actual evidence it was 12-0 in my favor.
We provided documentation showing in 2018 that my father’s girlfriend attempted to encourage the plaintiff to file this unfounded lawsuit. At that time my father’s estate wasn’t settled and the plaintiff refused her request. In 2022, just months after settling a major portion of my dad’s estate and three days before people began voting for Santa Cruz County Supervisor, the plaintiff, with help of my dad’s disgruntled girlfriend, then decided to file a lawsuit.
In the plaintiff’s closing argument they asked for 10 million dollars for future expenses which would include couple’s therapy for their over 15 year relationship, years of a gym membership and to put him through nursing school with tutoring. This case should have never made it to court.
While sexual assault is heinous, all allegations do not constitute the truth. Legally the burden of proof isn’t on the defense. We provided ample amounts of evidence that the allegations were untrue. The burden of proof which rests on the plaintiff was not met in this case, which will lead us to file an appeal.
I would like to thank my legal team Christopher Panetta, Gladys Rodriguez- Morales and Dawn Doss. Also, a heartfelt thank you to my friends, supporters, constituents and family for their unwavering support, especially my mom who has stood with me this entire time.
It’s time for Jimmy to forget his political aspersions. Move to another state and start a new Christian life. The public will never trust him or his trustee friend again with their votes.
We see this in all political circles. Perhaps politicians should learn that integrity will be demanded from them in the coming years. Good bye Jimmy take your ex-trustee friend with you
We want fresh clean faces in our government
I think we’ve done our work here Tonto.
HiYo, Silver!
👍👍👍👍👍👍
Memo to Jimmy Dutra: You can seek to blame others for your plight but you are your own worst enemy.
This is the verbatim quote from the Dutra statement as reported: “Reaching the threshold in a civil suit is extremely low. In this case an allegation and hearsay was enough.”
Jimmy, you dumb cluck, you just shot your appeal to smithereens. The rational argument to advance your planned appeal is that the law requires a HIGH threshold of proof that was unmet. Instead, you concede exactly the opposite! You admit that the threshold was “extremely low” and that the evidence was “enough.” Tsk tsk! Not smart!
And, by the way Jimmy, to avoid collection of the judgment while appealing the result, prepare to post a bond in the statutory amount—a multiple of the underlying award. Then, when your appeal fails, Mr.Scruggs can swoop in to collect on the bond without chasing you to the ends of the Earth for satisfaction of the award. Mr. Scruggs and his client should be so lucky as to have you post a bond on appeal.
In sum, you’re done!
LMAO where will Jimmy get the funds to pay for any of this? That chump hasn’t had a real job in his whole life! Working at a school is public information and we can see he never really worked and therefore never really made money. Oh he worked at a pumpkin patch? LoL! City council and mayor? HA! Daddy dearest isn’t around to bail him out now. Better sell your house and move in with mommy and hope a pedophile can get hired somewhere.
Hate much? Work at the pumpkin patch? He owns the pumpkin patch. Maybe you shouldn’t speak on things you know nothing aboutf