WATSONVILLE >> By most metrics, 2024 was a quiet year for Watsonville City Council elections.

Three seats were up for reelection, and two of them — those occupied by Eduardo Montesino and Vanessa Quiroz-Carter — saw no opposition, leading to the incumbents soaring to easy victories. This left the District 6 seat, occupied by Jimmy Dutra since 2020, as the only contested election, and it resulted in Dutra winning by 11% over former Councilwoman Trina Coffman-Gomez.

However, the path to victory was not an easy one for Dutra, as a 2022 lawsuit accusing him of sexually assaulting a minor in 2005 ended up going to a civil trial in September, resulting in Dutra being found liable on four out of five complaints and being ordered to pay $1.1 million to the plaintiff. This case has already gone back to court for the consideration of a new trial, with a recent motion by the plaintiff for an additional $300,000 in legal fees being denied by a judge.

The allegations began in 2022 as Dutra was making a bid for the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. Stephen Siefke, now 31, filed a lawsuit 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, claimed his decision to file the lawsuit was a result of him returning to town and seeing campaign signs with Dutra’s face on them and citing his work with youth during his campaign. At the time, Dutra was board president of Pajaro Valley Prevention and Student Assistance and an after-school substitute teacher at Lakeview Middle School. 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.

Dutra has consistently denied that the incident ever occurred, pointing out that one of the witnesses in the lawsuit was Susie McBride, the longtime partner of Dutra’s late father. At the time of the lawsuit’s filing, Dutra had reportedly gotten out of a contentious litigation with McBride over his father’s estate, claiming that she was upset she could not get certain items right away as Jim Dutra Sr.’s business partner sued the trust and reportedly went to the courts to prevent Dutra from serving as the estate’s trustee. Dutra further claimed that McBride, who died in 2023 after the lawsuit was filed, did not trust him and the case was more about revenge and money.

During the trial, Siefke’s attorney Dana Scruggs highlighted the trauma Siefke had faced and called upon various family members and friends Siefke had shared details of the incident with over the years, including Siefke’s longtime partner Blaze Rexroat, who said Siefke would experience trauma before and after the lawsuit, including panic attacks, nightmares and avoiding going out in public. A second allegation came forward during the trial when Damacio Montoya, the son of former Watsonville City Manager Charles Montoya, claimed Dutra groped him at a city function.

In addition to claiming the lawsuit was about revenge and money, Dutra also claimed his only interaction with Siefke in 2005 was greeting him and his family at the door and letting them sleep at his house during their trip to Disneyland and a King Tut exhibit but did not join them on either excursion. Testimony was also given by Dutra’s former partner, Christopher Fuentes, who said he was not aware of Dutra having interactions with minors and would not have tolerated it if it had occurred.

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. However, the jury did not find Dutra liable on a complaint of engaging in conduct with malice or oppression. The jury ordered Dutra to pay $1.133 million to Stephen Siefke to cover economic and non-economic costs associated with the case.

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

Following the trial, Scruggs said he was “relieved for Stephen Siefke that the jury heard his story and were persuaded that it was the truth.” Dutra, who was not present for the verdict, said in a statement afterward he was disappointed in the jury’s decision, maintaining that the alleged incident never happened and that he and his legal team would be filing an appeal.

“Reaching the threshold in a civil suit is extremely low,” he wrote at the time. “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.”

The verdict was reached less than two months before Election Day, but Dutra did not see a repeat of the 2022 Board of Supervisors election, where he went from taking first place in the June primary before the lawsuit was filed to losing to Felipe Hernandez in the general election afterward. Instead, Dutra received 55% of the vote in the District 6 City Council election compared to Coffman-Gomez’s 44%. Dutra was sworn in to his third non-consecutive term on the council — He previously served from 2014 to 2018 — and is set to retake the position of mayor in December 2027, a role he previously held in 2021 as the first out gay man in Watsonville to hold the title.

But the lawsuit is not over for Dutra. In October, he filed for a request for the court to set aside the jury’s verdict and be granted a new trial. Christopher Panetta, Dutra’s attorney, 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.”

In response, Scruggs wrote that the opposition to awarding the costs was insufficient.

“Instead of addressing and investigating the allegations in (Siefke)’s Complaint which identified multiple witnesses and admissible medical and therapy records corroborating that the molestation took place, (Dutra) ignored the evidence, and instead relied on his personal and political view that (Siefke)’s allegations were nothing more than a ‘witch hunt’, which indeed turned out to be a fine political position, but a bankrupt legal one,” he wrote.

Scruggs requested an additional $300,000 in legal fees due to Dutra’s denial of the allegations resulting in more substantial resources to prove Siefke’s case. However, Judge Timothy Schmal denied the request, stating that Dutra had reason to believe he would win during the trial. Schmal pointed to Siefke only waiting until after he was arrested for underage drinking and possession of cannabis when he was a teen to tell anybody and declining to give a statement after his mother had contacted the Beverly Hills Police Department.

Dutra, who represented himself at the Dec. 20 hearing, said the ruling was a victory for him.

“Today’s ruling proves my point, this case has always been about money and revenge, he wrote. “At trial, Stephen Siefke was denied punitive damages because this case had no evidence. He and his lawyer clearly wanted a bigger payday, but were denied. I am grateful to have the judge rule in my favor and deny them a $300,000 payout. Judge Schmal stated I had the right to believe I could have won at trial because of several inconsistent and questionable stories.”

Dutra plans to appeal the initial case. Additional court hearings have not yet been scheduled.