SANTA CRUZ >> Jimmy Dutra, who was recently re-elected to the Watsonville City Council following a civil trial where he was accused of sexually abusing a minor in 2005, announced Friday that he plans to appeal the case where he was found liable to pay $1.133 million by a jury in September.

This announcement came after a judge rejected a motion by Dana Scruggs, the attorney representing accuser Stephen Siefke, for Dutra to pay an additional $300,000 in legal fees, claiming that Dutra’s denial that the incident occurred had caused him to spend thousands of dollars to argue his case. Judge Timothy Schmal denied the request, opining that Scruggs’ evidence was based more on hearsay and that Dutra had reason to believe he would win during the trial.

In 2022, Siefke filed a lawsuit against Dutra claiming that the councilman molested him while his family stayed 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, who grew up in Watsonville, claimed he suffered guilt, shame and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder afterward, symptoms that became exacerbated as Dutra was making a bid for the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and Siefke saw his face on campaign signs. After learning Dutra worked with youth as board president of Pajaro Valley Prevention and Student Assistance and as an after-school substitute teacher at Lakeview Middle School — positions he no longer held after the lawsuit was filed, Siefke decided to file a civil suit against him.

Dutra has consistently denied that the incident ever took place and was an instance of revenge and money. One of the witnesses in the lawsuit was Susie McBride, Dutra’s longtime partner and a family friend of the Siefkes whom Siefke had reportedly confided in about the alleged incident while he was in high school. Dutra cited that he had gotten out of litigation with McBride over his father’s estate and claimed that she personally disliked him. McBride died in 2023 after the lawsuit was filed.

The case went to trial in September, which culminated in the jury finding Dutra liable for $1.1 million 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. Siefke initially sought $10 million in damages, but the jury not determining that Dutra acted with malice or oppression meant that Siefke was not awarded punitive damages where the burden of proof is much higher.

In October, Scruggs requested an additional $300,000 in attorney fees, stating that he was forced to spend a considerable amount on resources as Dutra’s defense was based around his own personal denials. In an opposition filed Dec. 9, Christopher Panetta — Dutra’s attorney at the time — wrote that the core of the lawsuit was based only on Siefke’s word that Dutra molested him and that there were no witnesses to the alleged incident, the allegations were only supported by “self-serving statements” made to friends and family and that the jury didn’t award punitive damages due to the lack of convincing evidence the incident took place.

“(Dutra) cannot be forced to admit to something he did not do when it is within his personal knowledge,” Panetta wrote in the opposition filing. “Therefore, even though the defendant was ultimately unsuccessful at trial, the plaintiff should not be awarded the costs of proof.”

Schmal denied Scruggs’ request and pointed to several pieces of evidence that Dutra could have won at trial on. He specifically cited that Siefke only waited until after he was arrested for underage drinking and possession of cannabis when he was a teen living in Hawaii to tell anyone and declining to give a statement after his mother had contacted the Beverly Hills Police Department.

Dutra, who represented himself at Friday’s hearing, was happy about Schmal’s ruling.

“I feel like the judge saw it correctly,” he said. “There were several reasons and pathways that the jury should have cited with me.”

Dutra plans to file an appeal soon as well as find a new legal team to take him through the next steps. He felt the jury’s decision was based more around emotions than evidence and hopes the next judge to hear the case will look at the facts.

“This was based off of hearsay,” he said. “It was a ‘he said, he said’ case, and people have a very emotional attachment to this topic.”

Scruggs said the rolling was not surprising as these kinds of motions are legal long shots.

“It’s a technical motion that involves various legal procedures that, had the judge found in our favor, it would have made us entitled to some attorneys’ fees in addition to the jury verdict amount, but we felt that it was a motion worth making,” he said. “It’s rarely granted because it’s really a question of the courts’ interpretation of the evidence and what happened pre-trial during the discovery process, but we felt like it was a motion worth making.”

Scruggs said the motion was made because he felt there was a good argument the court could rule in his and Siefke’s favor. Regardless, he felt it did not impact the merits of the case which were not at issue in Friday’s motion. He said he will continue to enforce the judgement against Dutra until all money is received.

“We intend to collect the over $1million that Jimmy Dutra owes Stephen Siefke,” he said. “We intend to go after him full bore until we collect every penny that the jury found him responsible for.”

Dutra said he will continue to fight the case.

“What happened here was something that shouldn’t happen to anybody,” he said.

Future hearings in this case are not currently scheduled.