WATSONVILLE, Calif. — A civil court jury has awarded over $1 million in damages to a man who accused a Watsonville City Councilman of sexually assaulting him as a child. The incident allegedly occurred in Los Angeles almost two decades ago. Councilman Jimmy Dutra, who faced allegations of sexual battery and lewd acts on a minor, was found liable after a weeklong trial followed by approximately three days of deliberations.
Stephen Siefke, the plaintiff, testified that he was only 12 years old during a 2005 visit to Disneyland with his family, when they stayed at Dutra’s apartment. According to Siefke, Dutra assaulted him one night after returning home, by groping him while he slept on a couch. The jury’s decision to award damages focused on the emotional and mental suffering caused by the alleged abuse, as well as economic losses Siefke endured.
While the jurors declared Dutra liable for damages, they did not find his actions to be malicious, which precluded the possibility of awarding punitive damages. The verdict marked a significant moment for Siefke, who expressed that the outcome validated his long-held grievances and underscored the courage required for survivors of abuse to come forward.
In a statement, Siefke highlighted the broader implications of his case, stressing the importance of protecting future generations from similar harm. He noted, “It’s not just a personal victory but a testament to the bravery of all survivors who struggle with the decision to tell their stories.”
Dutra, who was absent when the verdict was announced, has consistently denied the allegations. He suggested that the claims were driven by ulterior motives related to a familial dispute over an inheritance. Further emphasizing his stance, Dutra remarked on the timing of the lawsuit, which coincided with his campaign for Santa Cruz County supervisor in the 2022 primary election.
The councilman also argued that the accusations surfaced strategically after Siefke moved to Santa Cruz County and discovered Dutra’s role in local politics and education. By Siefke’s account, the realization that Dutra was teaching at a middle school while concurrently seeking public office spurred him to take legal action.
While the jury’s decision is not a criminal conviction—no criminal charges have been filed against Dutra—Siefke’s testimony and the subsequent verdict highlight ongoing concerns over how allegations of past abuses are handled, particularly when the accused hold positions of authority or public trust.
Dutra’s lawyer indicated that they are considering appeal options, which would likely be based on claims of legal or judicial error during the trial—a notion Siefke’s attorney, Dana Scruggs, dismissed as unlikely.
This case not only speaks to the specific events at hand but also to the broader societal challenges of addressing historical allegations of sexual misconduct, especially involving individuals in positions that involve close interactions with the vulnerable segments of the community, such as children. The outcome could potentially steer similar future cases and impact public policy on safeguarding children and vetting individuals for roles in education and governance.