Jimmy Dutra to appeal civil sex-abuse verdict after judge denies accuser’s request for additional legal fees

Watsonville City Councilmember Jimmy Dutra said Friday that he plans to appeal a September verdict that found him liable in a civil sex-abuse lawsuit and ordered him to pay more than $1.1 million in damages, saying the jury relied too heavily on hearsay evidence.

Dutra announced his decision after a Santa Cruz County Superior Court judge Friday morning rejected a motion by Dana Scruggs, the attorney representing Dutra’s accuser, Stephen Siefke, asking for an additional $300,000 in legal fees.

Scruggs argued Friday that Dutra’s blanket denials of the sexual assault accusations forced Scruggs to spend substantial resources proving Siefke’s case, and that Dutra should pay those additional legal costs.

The lawsuit alleged that Dutra molested now-31-year-old Siefke during the summer of 2005 when he was 12 and Dutra was 30. A jury found Dutra liable and ordered him to pay $1,133,000 in damages to Siefke, who had initially sought more than $10 million.

In denying the additional fees, Judge Timothy Schmal said Dutra had reasonable grounds to believe he could win at trial. The judge pointed to several pieces of evidence that could have swayed jurors, including that Siefke waited years to tell his parents about the alleged abuse and did so only after he was arrested as a teen in Hawaii for smoking marijuana.

Schmal also noted that Siefke declined to speak with law enforcement investigators in Southern California, where he alleged the abuse occurred, despite his parents’ encouragement. 

“The jury could have concluded based on that, that he didn’t want to talk to Beverly Hills law enforcement because it was a fabrication,” the judge said, adding: “Even though he was way wrong, Mr. Dutra had a reasonable good-faith belief that he could have prevailed in trial.”

Dutra opted to represent himself at Friday’s hearing, substituting for Monterey-based attorney Christopher Panetta. He said he is working to find new legal representation before filing an appeal.

The trial coincided with Dutra’s successful bid for reelection, and included testimony from two additional witnesses: Casey Clark, a fellow Watsonville councilmember and Dutra’s former romantic partner; and the son of a former city manager. Both men testified about what they described as incidents of abusive or inappropriate behavior.

Dutra has continued to maintain his innocence, telling Lookout after the hearing that Friday’s ruling gives further credence to his longstanding assertion that the legal fight has been about money and revenge since it was first filed in 2022.

“I should have won this case originally, and unfortunately, the jury didn’t see it in the two ways that the judge stated today,” he said. “I’m innocent, I’ve always been innocent, and this was a money grab.”

Siefke, who also attended Friday’s hearing, rejected Dutra’s characterization of his motivation for filing the lawsuit, saying he was driven by wanting to prevent Dutra from continuing to work with young people in Pajaro Valley School District, where he was a substitute and afterschool teacher.

“My motive and intention on this was never money,” he said. “It was to get him out of the schools, and now I have that legal piece that will make sure he’s never allowed to work around children again.”

Scruggs said Friday: “The real issue is: Are we going to be able to collect the $1.1 million?”

Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.