Watsonville City Councilman found liable in child sexual abuse case

SANTA CRUZ — A civil jury found Jimmy Dutra, a Watsonville City Council candidate running for re-election, liable for $1.1 million in damages on complaints that he sexually assaulted a 12-year-old boy in 2005 following deliberations Tuesday.

The jury ordered Dutra, who was not present at the announcement of the verdict, to pay $1.133 million to Stephen Siefke to cover economic and non-economic costs associated with the case.

The jury found Dutra liable on four of five complaints: sexual battery, molesting or annoying a child, lewd and lascivious conduct on a child under 14 and the conduct being a substantial factor in causing harm to Siefke. The one complaint the jury did not find Dutra liable for was engaging in conduct with malice or oppression. Because the trial was heard in a civil court, Dutra will not face jail time.

Siefke, now 31, filed the lawsuit in 2022, claiming that Dutra molested him while staying at Dutra’s house in Los Angeles in 2005 during a family vacation when Siefke was 12 and Dutra was 30. Siefke alleged that Dutra engaged in unwanted sexual advances and genital touching while Siefke was attempting to sleep on an air mattress. Siefke’s parents allegedly attempted to report the incident to law enforcement at the time, but Siefke was too ashamed to speak with police over it. He claims he suffered guilt, shame and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder afterward.

Siefke, who grew up in Watsonville, returned to the area in 2020 and was reminded of the incident as Dutra was making a bid for the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors two years later, an election which he later lost. Dutra’s campaign cited his work with youth as board president of Pajaro Valley Prevention and Student Assistance and as an after-school substitute teacher at Lakeview Middle School, which prompted Siefke to file the lawsuit. However, after the allegations came out, Dutra was reportedly no longer working with the Pajaro Valley Unified School District, and he had stepped down as Pajaro Valley Prevention and Student Assistance board president.

Shortly after the lawsuit, Dutra questioned the timing, due to both the election and the fact that he had just gotten out of a litigation over his father’s estate with his father’s girlfriend, Susie McBride, who was included as a witness in the lawsuit. McBride died in 2023.

During the trial, the prosecution highlighted the trauma the incident has had on Siefke and included testimony from friends he had told over the years. The defense questioned aspects of Siefke’s story, such as whether Dutra owned an air mattress at the time, and Dutra said the allegations negatively impacted him personally and professionally.

Dana Scruggs, Siefke’s attorney, said he was grateful for the verdict.

“I’m really relieved for Stephen Siefke that the jury heard his story and were persuaded that it was the truth,” he said.

Scruggs said the past two years have been difficult for Siefke.

“He’s not somebody who’s seeking this kind of attention,” he said. “It’s been a very hard struggle. (He’s) aggravated by the fact that Jimmy Dutra never took responsibility.”

Christopher Panetta, Dutra’s attorney, maintained that his client was innocent and would be exploring options to appeal.

“We’re disappointed with the verdict,” he said. “Jimmy Dutra didn’t do this.”

Dutra served one term on the City Council from 2014 to 2018 but was re-elected in 2020 and served a one-year term as mayor in 2021. In 2022, he made his third bid for county supervisor following the retirement of Greg Caput and even received a plurality of votes in the June primary, facing off against Felipe Hernandez in the November election. One month after the lawsuit was filed, Dutra was defeated by Hernandez but has remained on the City Council since.

Dutra is running for another council term in District 6, the only contested council election in Watsonville, where he is facing off against former Councilwoman Trina Coffman-Gomez.

Siefke initially sought $10 million in damages, but the jury not determining that Dutra acted with malice or oppression means that Siefke will not be awarded punitive damages where the burden of proof is much higher.

Dutra wrote in a statement that he was very disappointed in the verdict.

“I have said and will maintain that this allegation is false and never happened,” he wrote. “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 requiring more scrutiny and actual evidence it was 12-0 in my favor.”

Dutra confirmed that his defense team will be filing an appeal.

“While sexual assault is heinous, all allegations do not constitute the truth,” he wrote. “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.”